A Dalkey couple are seeking a High Court injunction to stop allegedly unlawful construction works at a site close to their home.
Paul and Sandra Williams claim Emmet Bergin has begun works without complying with certain conditions attached to planning permission granted for the construction of a four-bedroom house at the south Dublin site. They also allege Bergin has breached the permission by removing trees and damaging a boundary wall.
The Williamses live behind Bergin’s site in Mount Henry, a property on Torca Road.
Bergin acquired the planning permission at issue when he bought the site from the previous owner.*
READ MORE
According to their court documents, the Williamses say construction and traffic-management plans for Bergin’s development – to be agreed with Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council prior to the commencement of work – have not been approved.
Despite approval of the plans being a condition of planning permission, works have begun at the site, the Williamses claim.
The Williamses previously raised concerns about the impact of construction traffic accessing Bergin’s site via Torca Road, claiming it would block pedestrian and vehicular access on the road.
The Williamses further claim the permission has been breached by virtue of damage caused to a boundary wall, the removal of several trees and certain excavation works.
In correspondence sent in May, Bergin said compliance with the permission was “in hand”, with traffic and construction plans lodged with the local authority, according to the Williamses’ court papers. Bergin later stated in a letter that he had permission to carry out “enabling work” prior to satisfying the planning conditions.
In light of the alleged noncompliance with the planning permission, the Williamses are seeking an injunction to stop what they say is Bergin’s unauthorised development at the site.
On Monday, barrister Stephen Walsh, for the Williamses, instructed by Hayes solicitors, told Judge Emily Farrell that Bergin had given an undertaking not to carry out works at the site until a date in July.
Counsel said parties had agreed to adjourn the case to that date, and sought directions for the exchange of court documents.
Molly Higgins, barrister for Bergin, instructed by FP Logue solicitors, agreed her client had given the undertaking. She stated he intended to proceed with works subject to compliance with pre-commencement conditions.
The judge made directions on the exchange of sworn statements and adjourned the case.
In a sworn statement filed to the court, Vincent Alexander Dawson, personal assistant to the Williamses, says the couple “have no desire to prevent responsible, properly-managed and lawful development” at site in question.
“Unfortunately, the evidence discloses that the development which has been undertaken has been disorganised, dangerous and unlawful, insofar as the planning conditions have yet to be satisfied,” Dawson said.
“[The Williamses’] position is that the evidence discloses both that the planning conditions have not been satisfied and that the planning permission is being exceeded or breached, with old trees being felled which it was promised would not be felled,” he added.
*This article was amended on June 30th, 2026
