The owner of a pub opposite Trinity College has issued High Court proceedings over Dublin City Council’s “wholly disproportionate” decisions that allegedly purport to require the demolition of extension fit-out works.
Publican Declan Doyle says he bought a former betting shop at 29-30 Fleet Street several years ago to connect it to Doyle’s pub and open a new business.
He says he has so far invested €1.26 million in the venture.
He received a letter from the council in December 2021 warning “removal of the un-notified works may be the only option” to achieve building regulation compliance.
The purported deconstruction requirement relates to all works undertaken “without the necessary notice”.
In an affidavit, he says “very significant turnover was lost” due to the works stalling for more than 18 months until the enforcement notice was overturned by the District Court last May.
However, Dublin City Council has issued proceedings asking the High Court to judicially review this annulment.
Further, the council last December refused to register a “certificate of compliance on completion” as it maintains that works carried out without a valid “commencement notice” can never achieve such a certificate.
His building works commencement notice had been deemed invalid because planning permission for the venture had lapsed before the works began. Retention permission was later secured.
Mr Doyle’s case, which is also taken by pub operating company Amatrek Limited, seeks damages and orders quashing the council’s enforcement notice and its invalidation of his certificate of compliance on completion.
The plaintiffs are also asking the court to declare that failure to have a valid building works commencement notice does not preclude a compliance certificate from being registered by a county council.
Alternatively, they say, the relevant part of the Building Control Regulations should be struck down.
Mr Doyle says he has been advised that failure to comply with an enforcement notice is a criminal offence that can be prosecuted on indictment carrying a fine of up to €5,000 or six months in prison.
The loss suffered by the plaintiffs “markedly contrasts” with the “relatively modest nature of the fitout works carried out” and the council’s justification for its enforcement notice, he says.
It is difficult to see why a “wholesale demolition of works” is required, he says, adding that the cost of deconstructing and re-building would be “substantial”, “not affordable” and “wholly wasteful”.
Mr Doyle says he has at all times sought to ensure the works comply with legal requirements and he believes the works do comply with building regulations.
The enforcement notice referred “generically” to three parts of the Building Regulations but did not identify the works alleged to be non-compliant, Mr Doyle claims.
He was willing to address any concerns the Building Control Authority (BCA) had and is “extremely disappointed” with its refusal, despite requests, to identify the alleged non-compliance for a significant period, he says.
The items eventually identified were “easily resolved” and he would have been happy to deal with them promptly if they had been raised, he says. He has stressed he will address any non-compliance in a targeted way.
On Monday, the plaintiffs’ barrister, David Dodd, secured permission from the court to pursue judicial review of the local authority’s decisions. Only the plaintiffs were represented in court when Ms Justice Niamh Hyland made the orders and adjourned the proceedings to mid-April.
Mr Doyle and Amatrek’s case is against the council, the Minister for Housing and Local Government, the Attorney General and Ireland.
