Businessman Mr Dermot Desmond has incurred huge unnecessary costs as a result of Dublin Corporation's handling of an application for permission to carry out additional restoration works on an 18th century Georgian house in Dublin's Merrion Square, the High Court was told by his lawyer yesterday.
The house at No 71 Merrion Square was the home of the late fashion designer Ms Sybil Connolly.
Mr Paul Gallagher SC made the claim when opening a challenge by Illium Properties Ltd, a Gibraltar-registered company which bought the house in 2000 and with which Mr Desmond is involved, to the corporation's issuing in September 2001 of a notice for further information about the proposed restoration works. Illium claims this notice was unnecessary and unreasonable, but the corporation denies these claims.
Mr Gallagher said the proceedings about the notice are just one part of a legal dispute between Mr Desmond and the corporation in relation to how the corporation had handled issues regarding the renovation and protection of No 71.
He said what had begun as a project of great promise for Mr Desmond had turned out, as a result of the corporation's handling of the matter, to mean considerable difficulties, frustration and huge unnecessary costs.
During yesterday's hearing, Mr Gallagher told Mr Justice O'Leary that the house was bought in a very dilapidated state.
Most of the renovation was now complete, and a window had been inserted in the gable end. Mr Desmond had wished to insert a different type of window but the corporation had objected.
The issue for the court to decide was the validity of the corporation request of September 10th, 2001, for further information.
In an affidavit at an earlier court hearing on behalf of Illium, Mr Desmond spoke of his life-long fascination with Georgian buildings.
He said No 71 was "truly unique", and was occupied by Ms Connolly for some 40 years. It had been built in the 1790s, with a small extension added in the 1850s. Many of its 18th century features were intact, and its garden was "an oasis" within the city.
Mr Desmond said Ms Connolly had not had the resources to restore the house, but Illium had made available the necessary resources, and had engaged leading architects in design and restoration to carry out the works.
However, he said, the project had been dogged by difficulties in dealing with Dublin Corporation.
Yesterday Mr Gallagher said Illium had applied in November 2000 for permission to restore the house and permission was granted. It was necessary to demolish an extension from the 1960s which was neither attractive nor appropriate.
This was done but, as a result, it was necessary to architecturally treat the rear wall of the property.
A meeting was organised on site with the corporation in August 2001. By then the corporation had had a two-month period to deal with Illium's proposals, but had failed to do so.
On September 7th, 2001, the corporation had asked for an extension to the two-month period. It was really the corporation who wanted more time, but it could not apply for that, and instead asked Mr Desmond to do so. Mr Desmond had refused, and had asked the corporation to make a decision on the application for permission for the additional restoration works.
Counsel said on September 10th, 2001, the corporation had made a request for further information about the proposed works. That was not a bona fide request as it already had all the necessary information required for it to make a decision. The request was a device to get more time for the corporation.
In the proceedings, Illium wants an order quashing the corporation's request of September 10th, 2001, for further information about the restoration.
It also wants the court to find that a decision to grant planning permission in accordance with plans and documents already supplied to the corporation was deemed to have been granted.
The hearing continues today.
