A notification to South Dublin County Council for an exemption to use the former Moat Lodge Bed and Breakfast in Lucan as “accommodation for persons seeking international protection” has been approved.
This despite the fact that the Council planners had specifically rejected a claimed exemption under Class 14(h) of the Planning and Development regulations as not applicable to asylum accommodation. No reason was given by the Chief Executive for the changed decision.
The fact that Moat Lodge has been used for several years prior to this for asylum accommodation and without any application or exemption under any of the relevant planning regulations also appears not to have been an issue.
Local people claim that it has been used for that purpose since the Covid period and that is confirmed by the appearance of the company that owns Moat Lodge, GATTB, on the list of payments for asylum accommodation dating back to 2020.
GATTB is only listed as the owner of Moat Lodge since 2024 and there is no record of who the previous owners were or when it was sold. The Moat Lodge is registered with the Companies Registration Office as an active business owned by Astrid Scott.
There is an inspection report from the International Protection Procurement Services (IPPS) from July 2024. At that stage the Moat Lodge was providing accommodation for 28 people, all of them female or couples with children.
Despite this relatively long period in operation under contract from the Department of Integration the only previous planning applications and permissions relate to the extension of the building which as the planning report from Hughes Planners note did not require specific permission related to its use as a B&B as it was in use for that purpose prior to 1963.
Why then did it take so long for the owners to seek an exemption under regulations which Hughes recognise have been in place since 2001 with various amendments since that time, some by means of Statutory Instruments in place since 2022 which specifically require notification of exemptions to the local authority?
That has long been perceived as what has regularly been referred to as a ‘grey area’ in the planning process which has allowed numerous premises to operate under contract as asylum accommodation without ever having applied for permission, issued a notification to the local planning authority nor been granted an exemption under any provision of the planning regulations.
I have noted this numerous times and this absence of notifications and exemptions has been admitted by various local authorities not least in the case of the huge Citywest campus which has operated since 2022 without any such notification and which as we have seen recently – even when specifically requested by South Dublin County Council for proof of an exemption – Tetrarch has stated that not only had the owners never applied for an exemption but claim that they did not and do not need to.
Last week I received a response from the Department of Justice which now has responsibility for the contracting of asylum accommodation. This was in relation to another application for an IPAS centre which has been in use for that purpose for several years prior to any notification to the local authority.
Their position now appears to be – and they have never as far as I am aware stated this previously – is that it is only since 2025 that new and existing centres need to “engage with the local authority.” That is not mine or others understanding and it does not fit in with a long list of cases which we have examined before.
I will be returning to this very soon as it might be taken to provide a means for existing IPAS accommodation centres to in effect apply for post dated exemptions to cover periods in which they might be thought with good reason to have had no planning permissions or exemptions.
Something which is recognised in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report from last October where he listed planning irregularities among the many issues he had identified in a small sample of the centres in operation.
The report found that only 4 of 20 centres examined had proper planning permission. This despite the fact that the post 2022 planning regulations “require a property provider to notify the relevant local authority of the locations where change of use is taking place prior to commencement of development.”
It would seem clear then that the obligation since 2025 to “engage” is a direct consequence of that report. Not in the sense that there was never any such requirement prior to then but as a recognition of the fact that there was wholescale ignoring of the requirement to notify as set out in the amended planning regulations.
In the case of Moat Lodge Hughes planners, on behalf of GAATB, had sought an exemption under Class 14(h) which is part of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 – 2024, as amended, and contained within Schedule 2, Article 6, Part 1. Class 14(h) was introduced in 2015 through Statutory Instrument 582/2015 to allow a range of premises including hotels and guesthouses to be used to accommodate persons seeking international protection.
Hughes claimed that the proposal to accommodate asylum seekers did not constitute development as “no change of use has occurred, nor have any works been carried out to the property.”
The planners in SDCC were not at first persuaded of the proposal and in a document dated March 3 and signed by a Senior Executive Planner, the Council sought additional information. The reason for this is that, contrary to the application, the planners considered that “the use of the Moat Lodge B&B to ‘provide accommodation for persons seeking international protection’ would constitute a material change of use of the structure and is therefore ‘development’, as defined in Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended).”
They further noted that “the proposed temporary use for accommodation for persons seeking international protection appears to fall within Class 20F of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (as amended), rather than Class 14(h) as referenced.”
The SDCC assessment of the application appeared to be clear cut and stressed that “The documentation also makes numerous references to Class 14(h), which is a class that does not relate to a temporary change of use for the accommodation of persons seeking international protection.”
And yet in the Chief Executive’s order of April 8 he refers to the clarification from Hughes which again states that they were “relying solely on the provisions of Class 14(h) of Part 1, Schedule 2, of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (as amended).”
Having previously rejected the claim that Class 14(h) allowed for change of use to accommodation for persons seeking international protection, SDCC – without explaining why – has now concluded that “Both the existing and proposed use are consistent with Class 14(h) as detailed. The proposal relates to a change of use only, no works are proposed. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would be exempted development in accordance with the provisions of Class 14(h) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (as amended).”
Is it any wonder that people are confused and that it is regularly referred to as a “grey area”?
Independent Ireland Councillor Linda de Courcy said that she has been contacted by people in Lucan who are frustrated over the manner in which this has been handled by all of the relevant parties, including the County Council.
She informed me that she intends to raise this at the next Council meeting and specifically ask to be told “how the Council planners could decide in the first instance that Class 14(h) did not allow for an exemption for Moat Lodge to be used as asylum accommodation, and a few weeks later to decide that it can be allowed such an exemption.
“If there are valid grounds for the changed decision – and there does not appear to be from the response given them by the developers – then at the very least residents and Councillors who have expressed their concerns are entitled to be told what the grounds for the changed decision are.”
In a post on the Lucan Living Facebook group, independent councillor Liona O’Toole stated that she had never been consulted as a Councillor on the issue, and that she has highlighted the lack of consultation and information supplied to both the elected Council and to the local community.