Dublin Corporation has taken High Court proceedings to remove an advertising hoarding from the side of a four-storey listed Georgian building.
The owners of the property at the junction of Inns Quay and Chancery Place, beside the Four Courts, and the advertising poster company refuse to take down the sign.
They claim the side wall of the building has been used since the 1950s for advertising purposes and as such is exempt from the provisions of the 1963 Local Government (Planning and Development) Act requiring planning permission.
In proceedings before the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Morris, the corporation has applied for an order compelling Mr Arnold Lowe, of the legal firm, Messrs Connolly Lowe, owners of the property, and Signways Ltd, of Lower Leeson Street, Dublin, from continuing to use the wall for advertising purposes.
It also wants an order directing the respondents to remove the hoarding which, it claims, was erected without planning permission. The hearing concluded yesterday and judgment was reserved.
The court was told Signways had taken over the site from David Allen Ltd in December 1995, that the same size of advertising sign has been on the wall since 1961 and that there was an advertising hoarding on the wall since the 1950s or earlier.
In an affidavit, Mr David J. Nolan, a planning official with Dublin Corporation, said he observed a new advertising hoarding being erected by Signways on January 3rd, 1996. The building was listed within the 1991 Dublin City Development Plan and was located within a conservation area. Planning permission had not been sought. While the corporation did not know when the wall was first used for advertising purposes, it accepted it had been in use since 1979. He said the erection of an advertising hoarding following the removal of another structure constituted a development within the meaning of the Planning Acts and required planning permission.
In September, 1998 Signways applied for planning permission for a hoarding on the site but was refused, a decision subsequently upheld by Bord Pleanala.
Ms Carol O'Farrell, for the corporation, argued that it did not matter how long a wall was used for advertising. What was important was that the erection of a structure on a wall, such as a hoarding in this case, constituted "work" within the meaning of the Planning Acts, and therefore required permission.
Mr Eamon Galligan, for the owners of the building, said his clients considered they had pre-1964 user-status both in regard to the building itself and the hoarding.
Mr Gabriel Rawlston, for Signways, said the hoarding was not a structure within the meaning of the Planning Acts.