Works to address serious fire safety risk at the Priory Hall apartment complex are underway and the fire authorities are broadly satisfied with the progress made to date, the High Court was told today.
However, lawyers for some residents expressed concern about other possible defects in the 187-apartment complex at Donaghmede and have sought building reports from Dublin City Council, who earlier this month secured orders requiring evacuation of the complex and remedial works to be completed by the end of November.
The court heard that some of the 240 residents evacuated from the complex are to be housed in temporary accommodation from next week - 37 families are to be put up in apartments close to Priory Hall provided by the National Assets Management Agency (Nama) and five families are to be housed courtesy of a voluntary housing association.
Other residents remain in two Dublin hotels and in accommodation sourced by themselves.
The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, was updated today on the progress of the works being carried out, on foot of court orders, by developer Thomas McFeely whose Coalport Building Company built the apartments in 2006. The judge previously ordered those works must be completed by November 28th with the court to monitor progress on a weekly basis.
Yesterday marked the first monitoring hearing and Mr McFeely was in court. His counsel, Martin Hayden SC, sought a variation of a freezing order on his accounts to allow him living expenses. Counsel asked for €2,000 weekly to meet mortgage and other payments but Mr Justice Kearns said, in the circumstances, he would allow €1,000.
John O’Donnell SC, for some residents, had earlier said the court could take it his clients were not consenting to any payments “of any sort” to Mr McFeely.
Fire safety inspector Donal Casey told the judge he was broadly satisfied with the fire safety works being carried out but had concerns about other matters at the complex not related to fire safety. There was a report indicating some mortar was soft and wall ties were inadequate, he said.
Mr Casey also said he was anxious to get a schedule of works covering the total period up to November 28th in an effort to ensure the works would complete by that date.
Having visited the site twice in recent days, Mr Casey said he was satisfied it was not necessary to take down the entire external walls of the complex and work could be carried out on sections of that. Much of the external walls had been removed and he observed cavity barriers incorrectly fixed and in the wrong locations. The works carried out to date were broadly consistent with the works agreed.
Conleth Bradley SC, for the Council, said the case was about reducing the fire safety risk to an acceptable level and the other matters raised were not before the court.
Mr O’Donnell, for a number of residents, asked that they be provided with certification of the works, a schedule of proposed works and information concerning insurance of the complex. He understood a Building Control investigation report would be available in two weeks and his clients wanted a copy of that to see “what else is wrong” with the complex.
Vincent Martin, for other residents, said three mortgage lenders had agreed to a three month moratorium on mortgage payments for some residents. His clients also had concern about the adequacy of Mr McFeely’s funds and wanted to see his statement of affairs.
Mr Hayden, for Mr McFeely, objected to that and Mr Justice Kearns said he would not, at this stage, direct disclosure of the statement of affairs. The judge also stressed the matter before the court related to fire safety but the Council could consider the applications concerning the building reports.
