Despite the withdrawal of the exemption which allowed the use of the former St. Brigid’s nursing home at Crooksling as an IPAS centre, on Tuesday the Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan made it clear that the state intended to retain the site for use as asylum accommodation.
In response to PQs from Independent Ireland TD, Ken O’Flynn, and Sinn Féin TD, Eoin Ó Broin, regarding the use of emergency planning powers to allow the provision of such accommodation, the Minister made it clear that the recent revocations of a Statutory Instrument did not mean that the state was no longer going to use specific sites for the purpose of providing accommodation.
A High Court case had been taken by an environmentalist, Mr. Conway, against the approval for Crooksling. In response, the court was informed on May 12 that the State was revoking Statutory Instrument 481/2024 and that therefore there was no legal basis for retaining the emergency accommodation at the former nursing home.
While Minister O’Callaghan referred to the revocation under SI 260/2025 which was made on June 20, and to the earlier revoking of the exemption for Thornton Hall, he also made it clear that “all these sites remain an important part of the implementation of the Government’s Comprehensive Accommodation Strategy and the Programme for Government. This aims to build a sustainable system and develop more State-owned international protection accommodation.”
In a recent response to South Dublin County Councillor, Independent Francis Timmons the Community Engagement Team of the Department of Integration stated in relation to Crooksling that “all temporary accommodation facilities have been removed from this site.”
However, contrary to the expectations of the local community “approximately 130 people” are still being accommodated in existing buildings as “Planning exemptions allow for the use of the buildings as international protection accommodation and this use will continue.”
It was widely assumed that the revocation of the exemption contained in the Ministerial order meant that Crooksling would no longer be used as an IPAS centre. As we reported at the time, Independent Ireland Councillor Linda de Courcy welcomed this as a relief for the local community.
One of the reasons that Councillor de Courcy and others believed that the site as a whole would have to close was that she had previously discovered that neither the state, nor the original contractor Igo – who were replaced by a new company Trailhead Unlimited at the end of 2024 – had notified South Dublin Council in relation to any exemption.
Councillor de Courcy is going to again ask SDCC if they were given such a notification as was the obligation on the State and the contractor. She said that the State is equally as obliged as any citizen to abide by its own planning regulations, and that this does not appear to have been the case here.
As we reported, part of the basis for Mr. Conway’s case was that his legal team had been informed by SDCC that they were unaware of any application for an exemption under Section 5 to use the site to house applicants for International Protection.
Therefore, no exemption has been approved or notified and if the Statutory Instrument has been revoked there would appear currently to be no basis for any applicants for International Protection to be accommodated at Crooksling. Justice Farrell in the High Court had allowed the SI to stand solely on the basis that the State be given time to remove the emergency accommodation.
Which begs the question as to how the State plans to continue to use Crooksling, and to bring Thornton Hall on stream, if there would appear to be no statutory basis for either site being used to accommodate asylum seekers.
A legal source informed Gript that there was an obligation to inform the local authority prior to proceeding. That is outlined clearly in SI 376/2023 which amended the Planning and Development Regulations to include Class 20F which allowed “Temporary use by or on behalf of the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth to accommodate or support displaced persons or persons seeking international protection.”
However, that is qualified by subsection 5 which states that “The relevant local authority must be notified of locations where change of use is taking place prior to the commencement of development.” No such notification was made to South Dublin County Council in the case of Crooksling. The absence of such exemption was one of the bases for the successful legal challenge.
With uncertainty surrounding Crooksling, Thornton Hall, and Lissywollen – which is the subject of an ongoing case – the question is how might the State provide itself with new statutory authority to proceed with its clear intention to use such sites and others as large scale accommodation centres on publicly owned lands.
These are clearly essential given that most privately owned premises have smaller capacity and the State would obviously prefer to be able to place 1,000 or more persons in one site than to continually seek and approve smaller private applications with the almost inevitable opposition they attract.
That could be achieved by means of new Statutory Instruments or even by way of amending existing or drafting entirely new legislation that would circumvent any objections including from local authorities. Given that the State is clearly intent on retaining the existing centres on public lands, despite legal objections that have held them up, they might have no choice other than to legislate.
Loading ...