A Haleysbury pub proprietor is embarking on a legal battle with Dublin City Council over what he claims are “unjustifiably excessive” determinations potentially leading to the teardown of extension refurbishments. Declan Doyle, the beerhouse operator, reports purchasing an old bookmaker’s store at 29-30 Fleet Street with intentions of linking it to his pub, Doyle’s, in order to venture into a new business, having already expended €1.26 million thus far.
The Council sent Doyle a communication in late 2021 stating that dismantling the undeclared additions might be the solitary remedy to conform to construction regulation requirements. The alleged teardown prerequisite is related to all operations performed without the required prior notification.
Doyle outlined substantial financial losses due to delays caused by the halted works over a year and a half awaiting the reversal of the enforcement order by the District Court in May. Conversely, Dublin City Council is now requesting a judicial examination regarding this cancellation.
In December, the Council refused to acknowledge Doyle’s “completion assurance certificate” because they held that undertakings implemented sans a valid “initiation notice” can’t be acknowledged with such a certificate in the future. The notification for the commencement of his building works was considered void as the planning permission had expired before the constructions started, although retention permission was gained later on.
Doyle, along with the pub managing firm Amatrek Limited, is seeking for damages and commands annulling the council’s enforcement order and its dismissal of his course of completion certification. They also seek a court ruling to acknowledge a compliance certificate sans a valid construction initiation notice, or alternatively, request a revision to the relevant section of the Building Control Regulations.
Doyle has been alerted that non-compliance with an enforcement notice might be a legal violation carrying severe penalties – a hefty fee of up to €5,000 or a sentence of six months in jail. According to Doyle, this hardship stands in stark contrast to the modest extent of the refurbishing done and the council’s reason for the notice.
He argues it’s virtually impracticable to rationalize why a “full-fledged deconstruction” is mandated, adding that the expense of dismantling and reconstruction would result in significant, unfeasible, and entirely rash monetary implications.
Mr Doyle maintains that he has consistently made efforts to ensure the legality of his work and stands by his belief that the work adheres to the building regulations. He asserts that the enforcement notice vaguely described three violations of the Building Regulations without pointing out specific non-compliant works. Willing to address any issues raised by the Building Control Authority (BCA), Mr Doyle expresses his significant disappointment in the BCA’s unreceptive stance towards identifying the claimed noncompliance. Although any identified issues were easily rectified, Mr Doyle is adamant that he would have responded promptly had these concerns been brought to his attention. He emphasises his commitment to correcting any infringements in a focused manner. The court allowed David Dodd, the barrister of the plaintiffs, to seek a judicial review of the local authority’s decisions on Monday. The plaintiffs were the only party represented in court when Justice Niamh Hyland ordered and further postponed proceedings until mid-April. The lawsuit brought by Mr Doyle and Amatrek is against the council, the Minister for Housing and Local Government, the Attorney General and Ireland. Delve into our Inside Politics Podcast for up-to-the-minute commentary and analysis, or sign up for instant alerts for top-tier news, insight and commentary sent directly to your phone. Keep abreast with The Irish Times on WhatsApp.