Dublin City Council told the High Court it compulsorily purchased a valuable site, including the former Carlton cinema on O'Connell Street, in 2001 because it became apparent the Carlton group of developers had neither the expertise nor finance to develop the site.
Claims by a member of the Carlton group, Mr Paul Clinton, that the council's decision to proceed with the compulsory purchase order (CPO) was intended to procure an involvement in the site for property developer Treasury Holdings Limited and a related company, Keelgrove, were "without foundation", the council said.
In proceedings against the council, An Bord Pleanála and the State, Mr Clinton of the Gate Lodge, Ranelagh, Dublin, is challenging the CPO in December 2001 for a site at Upper O'Connell Street, Moore Street, O'Rahilly Parade and Henry Place. The CPO was confirmed on January 17th, 2003, after an oral hearing, by An Bord Pleanála.
Mr Clinton has claimed the compulsory purchase was unfair and breached his constitutional right to property. In an affidavit, he claimed delays and problems he met in advancing the Carlton project were due to several factors. These included legal challenges, "false claims" by Treasury Holdings/Keelgrove over access to and ownership of the site, and the continuing threat of a CPO which caused Carlton problems in dealings with possible joint venture partners.
He said it was "of considerable interest" that the site covered by a Treasury Holdings/Keelgrove presentation to the council in October 1997 was the same one outlined in the map attached to the CPO issued by the council in December 2001.
Mr Clinton said the council itself had been delayed in completing civic works on O'Connell Street, such as construction of the Spire. The Carlton project was far greater in scale, magnitude and complexity than the Spire, he said. Confidence in the project was crucial and there was considerable unease among prospective tenants over the start of civic works.
On the second day of the action yesterday, Ms Anne Graham, project manager of the O'Connell Street Integrated Area Plan (IAP), said in an affidavit that she was the official responsible for implementing the plan's objectives.
It was the council's view for years that O'Connell Street was in decline and it had published the plan in February 1998. It proposed nine specific site clusters to be designated for tax incentives, of which the most important was site cluster one. It incorporated the former Carlton cinema, the adjacent vacant site and the east side of Moore Street. In the council's view, the redevelopment and regeneration of the cinema and the surrounding area was essential to regenerate O'Connell Street.
She said Mr Clinton was aware from 1997 that the council intended to compulsorily acquire the Carlton lands if that was necessary for their redevelopment. It was against that background that Mr Clinton and his partners had formulated their plans to redevelop the site which led ultimately to the Carlton group getting planning permission in 1999.
If the group's plans had been implemented, they would have significantly contributed to the redevelopment of O'Connell Street and would have conformed with the IAP, she said.
These plans were challenged in legal proceedings which were disposed of in early 2000. After that, Ms Graham said, the council gave the group an adequate opportunity to begin the development it had got permission for, while reminding it to start such development as soon as possible.
Unfortunately, Mr Clinton and his partners failed to begin work on their "Millennium Mall" project and, in the council's view, had by the end of 2001 failed to show any reasonable likelihood they would do so in a reasonable time frame.
It became apparent the Millennium Mall project was not going to go ahead. A number of others who were involved indicated they no longer wished to be involved, she said. Only Mr Clinton appeared to be fully committed to the project and he had neither the financial capability nor proven development expertise of the scale required to undertake it. That was why the council decided to proceed with the CPO. It believed the site required the involvement of a developer with a proven record who was capable of taking on a project of this magnitude, Ms Graham said.
The council wanted the site to be redeveloped in accordance with the IAP. It had no specific preference for one developer over another. A transparent and open competitive bid process would be necessary before it could express any view on what development it would sanction.
At present, it was very unlikely that the council would be directly involved in the redevelopment. Because it had not, at this point, a more precise development plan in mind provided no legal basis for refusing to confirm the CPO, Ms Graham said.
