TREACY on Brittas: The High Court ruling and the full story
Readers will be familiar with the background to the unauthorised development at Brittas which yesterday evening culminated in the publication of the decision by High Court Justice Richard Humphreys to completely reject the appeal of the developers against an enforcement order from South Dublin County Council.
The series of events began in August 2025, when the owner of Branach Developments, Paddy Byrne, landed up on what had been a long vacant site adjacent to the Chianti Park mobile home park and proceeded to clear hedges and begin the laying of foundations for what became the accommodation units in the photograph above.
It transpired that there was no planning application for such a development, and South Dublin County Council issued warning letters on August 18, 2025, and subsequently an enforcement order that the units be removed and the site restored to its original state.
Research had in the meantime revealed that the site was owned by the McDermott family through two companies called Mullnassa and Threshford. Justice Humphreys notes that on October 1 last, that information had been refused or failed to be supplied on demand to SDCC.
It turned out that the main line of business these days of the coy owners’, the McDermotts, is the provision of asylum accommodation – and their portfolio of companies including Polarside, Fairkeep, and Boogran, has drawn down tens of millions in taxpayer funds channelled through the Department of Integration and IPAS.
The IPAS connection raised fears locally that the units at Brittas might have been hoped to be offered to the Department of Justice for that purpose, but there was never any official confirmation that this might have been the case.
“As far from innocence as you can get”
In his decision, Justice Humphrey completely rejects the basis for the appeal against the enforcement order, as upheld by the Circuit Court on December 19, and refers to “the almost unbelievable chutzpah of the developers who even now claim “innocent mistake”, even though they ignored or deflected warning letters and intensified construction of the unauthorised development in the teeth of interventions from the council and residents and during the course of proceedings before the Circuit Court.”
He goes further and makes the following remark regarding the attitude of the appellants: “This is as far from innocence as you can get – this was an attempt to create a fait accompli with a view to turning around and defiantly asking the system, in effect, “what are you going to do about it?”.”
“I suppose, like many other people who defy planning law, the respondents are now going to find out,” he said.
For those who attended the court proceedings we were struck by what sometimes seemed to be the Gormenghastian arguments of Senior Counsel Michael O’Donnell that the new constructions were seemingly some bizarre renovations or upgrading of pre-existing structures which were either invisible to the human eye or long lost to history in the manner of archaeological debris.
Justice Humphreys was having none of that. While praising their “hammering” of the law in order to construct an “ornate scholarly infrastructure,” they were defeated not by any fine points of jurisprudence but rather by “the egregious nature of their [the developer’s] own conduct and the inevitably adverse factual findings that flow from that.”
As part of that conduct, Justice Humphreys refers to their attempts to delay a response to his draft judgement sent on May 22 on the basis that senior counsel was on vacation. They then attempted another angle tantamount to a “right of appeal,” which Justice Humphreys describes as “not uncharacteristic of the scattergun approach on behalf of the respondents here.”
In its response, South Dublin County Council was similarly dismissive of the basis of the appeal made by the developers: “The Court was fully aware of the nature of the structures previously located on the lands – with the central point being that once demolished and removed, they could not be the same structures (a point which the Appellants seem unwilling to accept). Indeed, this is expressly reflected in the proposed Order at §175(iii), wherein the Court restrains the Appellants from ‘re-erecting caravans, mobile homes or other structures that have been removed ..’.”
This meant that the reference to Section 4(1)(h) of the 2000 Planning and Development Act by Counsel was irrelevant, although I do have to say that listening to Michael O’Donnell SC’s lengthy peroration on that piece of legislation was legitimately both intriguing and fascinating. Ultimately, neither Judge O’Connor in the Circuit Court or Justice Humphreys were having a bar of it.
Justice Humphrey’s view is that “Section 4(1)(h) is concerned with works which make insignificant differences (improvements/maintenance/alterations) to existing structures. It does not apply to works which comprise the total or substantial replacement of the original structure. It does not apply to development which involves the demolition of one structure and the construction of an entirely new structure. It does not apply to site clearance works.”
Nor did Justice Humphreys allow the appellants to introduce new submissions which had not been presented to the Circuit Court. He specifically refers to evidence from a ‘Ms Mulcrone.’ I understand this to be Ann Mulcrone who now owns Reid Associates and was formerly an inspector with An Bord Pleanála.
Justice Humphreys ruled out her affidavit on the grounds that it was now presented to the Circuit Court. He also noted that “Ms Mulcrone’s affidavit contradicts other affidavits of the respondents regarding the date of commencement of the caravan/ mobile home park.”
Which is all of a piece, in my view, with what the Justice describes as the “scattergun” approach of the developer and owners. One might even form the impression that Byrne and the McDermott’s were of the view that no-one would be able to stand in the way of their unauthorised development and whatever plans they had for it.
Sought to complete site work
My own opinion, and based upon his comments I imagine the Justice shares it, is that they clearly believed they could plough ahead with the construction of the new dwellings despite the Council letters and order and at the same time as the Court proceedings were still ongoing. One might surmise that they believed that if they could complete the site work that they would eventually secure a retention order.
If that was their assumption they were wrong. Counsel and the legal teams for SDCC and John O’Neill ably argued against the planning and other grounds that were put forward by the developers. In doing so they clearly had the support of the local community to whom Justice Humphreys refers to as having been fully co-operative with any requests made to them. He also notes “the extensive publicity given to the matter.”
The parties return to Court next Wednesday, June 10, on the morning of which the developers will be “required to submit a detailed draft remediation and landscaping plan.” They will also have to bear the entire costs of the case.
As my reporting over the past ten months has shown, not only were the developers attempting to “defy planning law,” but were prepared to turn the lives of people living in the existing homes there upside down. I have documented, and Gript has videoed, the physical impact.
Many of the residents told Gript that they were in fear and felt sometimes imprisoned in their own homes. Some told Gript they were afraid to leave their own house, believing that it might be demolished when they were out. Residents including women with infant children had their electricity and water supply randomly cut off as construction progressed.
In such a scenario there is only one side, and in this instance some of those with power in the State took the right one.
