There have been “extraordinary delays” in restoring a Carlow town site on which a building was demolished without permission, a High Court judge has said.
Judge Mary Rose Gearty said it has been “painful” to observe a case in which orders for the property’s reinstatement were made in 2017 by a now-retired judge.
She noted there has been much publicity around a separate example of a house built 20 years ago without planning permission in Co Meath. It was demolished by the local council last week.
The judge was “not in the least surprised” that plaintiff Elaine Morgan, a barrister and co-owner of a protected adjoining property on Dublin Street, wanted to bring a motion for the defendants’ attachment and imprisonment if they fail to comply with certain further steps, including submissions of updated project drawings, by April 17th.
READ MORE
The case, which is also brought by Carlow County Council, is against the property’s owners, Slaneygio Limited and developer Joseph Germain.
In 2017, then High Court judge Marie Baker ruled that the demolition of number 25 Dublin Street over a bank holiday weekend in October 2016 required planning permission. The owners claimed the two-storey building had been in an unsafe condition after internal works led to the collapse of a rear wall. Morgan alleged the claims it was unsafe were not credible.
In updated legal documents, Morgan alleged her property, which was attached to and supported by the demolished building, has suffered from water ingress and dampness.
She claimed no works have yet commenced on the site of the property despite extensive engagement by a court-appointed engineer who delivered detailed drawings and specifications for the build. She alleged the owners have shown a “clear and unequivocal unwillingness to comply” with the terms of the 2017 order and have “no intention of complying … if they believe they can avoid it”.
On Thursday Morgan’s barrister, Tadhg Dorgan, instructed by Malcomson Law, said the owners have failed to comply with fresh deadlines for delivering structural drawings but did send on some documents on Wednesday evening.
The items cannot continue to be sent in a “piecemeal” fashion, he said, adding that he wanted to bring a motion seeking the owners’ attachment and imprisonment if they failed to deliver the remaining required documents by April 17th.
Damien Conroy, counsel for the defendants, said his clients had no difficulty delivering the documents by that date. He objected to the potential attachment and committal motion given the owners are “making progress” and there had been a “significant level of compliance with the previous order”.
The judge said it was “perfectly clear” there was no planning permission for the works done “under the cover” of a bank holiday weekend. It is now 2026, and it is not at all surprising Morgan wanted a response to the “extraordinary” situation.
“I simply don’t accept it is unfair in any way to seek an order to attach and commit the [property owners] because it seems to me that might be the only way to ensure compliance,” said Gearty.
The case is due to return to court in a month for an update on progress.
