The demolition of a building on one of the oldest streets in Carlow town over a bank holiday weekend required planning permission, the High Court has ruled.

Number 25 Dublin Street was demolished over the October bank holiday weekend last year because its owners said it was in an unsafe condition after certain internal works led to the collapse of a rear wall.

A neighbour brought legal proceedings claiming the demolition was unauthorised and seeking an order it be reinstated to its prior condition.

The neighbour, Elaine Morgan, said the owner's claims the building was unsafe were not credible and argued that material from the demolition, including rafters and brick, showed they were not in bad condition and were even in good condition.

Ms Morgan and her two siblings own the adjoining number 26 which is a protected structure.

Number 25 is not protected but is in an architectural conservation area and has been empty for a number of years.

Ms Morgan says the demolition of number 25 by its owners Slaneygio Ltd and Joseph Germaine required permission from Carlow County Council, which supported her case.

Exempted development

Mr Jermaine, who indicated his intention to the council last June to demolish the premises and to seek permission to build a hostel there, claimed the demolition was exempted development.

He said that, once the rear wall collapsed, the whole structure posed a hazard to adjoining properties and to the general public on the street.

He also argued the legal proceedings were unnecessary and oppressive because he had stated his willingness to reinstate the building.

In her decision, Ms Justice Marie Baker ruled demolition works were not exempt.

The entire character of the building had been destroyed and, as a matter of law, and objectively speaking, it was not possible to argue the works carried out on it did not materially affect its external appearance so as to render it inconsistent with its previous structure or surrounding buildings, she said.

The matter of motive – destruction for the purpose of putting in place a more structurally sound building – cannot render the demolition works exempt, she said. She said she would have to hear further evidence on whether she would exercise her discretion to order reinstatement in light of the defendants’ assertion the demolition occurred as a mistake or unintended consequence of the internal works.