Developer required to give evidence on destruction of building

Planning and development - application arises from the demolition by the respondents of a terraced building numbered 25 ("the Premises") on a street - number 26 is a protected structure and the applicant and her two siblings are the owners - first respondent is a limited liability company of which the second respondent is the principal shareholder, and is the owner of the premises at No. 25 - this judgment is given in an application for an order pursuant to s. 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, (“the PDA”) for the reinstatement of the Premises to its prior condition, and for ancillary orders relating to the degree of detailed directions and scrutiny to be engaged by the court regarding such works - on 1st November, 2016, this Court made an order ex parte restraining the carrying out of further works by the respondents to the Premises and the preservation of all structural materials at, or taken from, the site - respondents have indicated a willingness to reinstate the building - Premises has been empty for a number of years - In December, 2015 first named respondent purchased the Premises - no planning permission exists for the demolition of the building - it is accepted for the purposes of this application that, as the demolition was not a spontaneous event, the demolition may be characterised as “works” comprising development within the meaning of the PDA - the Premises is not a protected structure and the works of internal refurbishment were exempt from the requirement of planning permission - entire character of the Premises as a building has been destroyed - second named respondent asserted that his purpose in carrying out the works of total demolition arose from advice that the building was unsafe, and that the sequence of events had the effect that, notwithstanding his prior intention, the only reasonable and safe thing to do was to demolish the building in its entirety - applicants claim evidence of first named respondent is not credible - s. 160 provides that the application is to be heard by affidavit - matter cannot be resolved by affidavit - appropriate second named respondent attends to give evidence.