Limerick council withdraws prosecution against Supermac’s over 'unauthorised' signage

LIMERICK City and County Council says it “fully intends” to bring new proceedings against Supermac’s over what it claims is unauthorised signage at a premises it owns in the city.

The prosecution relating to an illuminated 3D sign at Funworld, Ennis Road was withdrawn - a week after the contested hearing had been paused.

At Limerick District Court, barrister James Charity, for Supermac’s, told the court his instructions were “not to change his position” and he indicated the matter could be escalated to the High Court by way of judicial review, with the potential for increased costs and delay.

Read next: Limerick businessman accused of making over 150 planning complaints against Supermac's

His stance prompted solicitor Will Leahy, representing the local authority, to withdraw the prosecution without prejudice.
He stated his instructions were that the council “fully intends to bring this matter back before the court again.”

Mr Charity noted this but said he was “reserving his position” in the matter.

The earlier hearing provided the court with detailed background on the dispute, which arose from the installation of an illuminated 3D sign at the Funworld premises on the Ennis Road, near TUS Gaelic Grounds.

Executive engineer Sean McGrath told the court the council received a complaint in 2022 regarding three signs on the front façade of the premises.

A warning letter was issued in November 2022, followed by an enforcement notice in April 2023, advising Supermac’s of a potential breach of planning regulations.

During a follow-up inspection in March 2023, he observed that the original ‘Funworld’ sign had been replaced.

Mr McGrath said the premises had planning permission dating back to 1994 for plain signage, but the new illuminated 3D sign over the main entrance did not comply with the Limerick Development Plan.

Mr Charity argued the warning letter and enforcement notice were vague and did not clearly identify which sign was allegedly unauthorised.

After the case was withdrawn, Judge Peter White refused Mr Charity’s application for costs, noting that the case “was not being struck out, it is being withdrawn by the council,” and therefore he was “not making an order to award costs.”