A dispute over Dublin Corporation's handling of an application for planning permission to carry out additional restoration works on an 18th century Georgian house in Dublin's Merrion Square - home of the late fashion designer Sybil Connolly - has come before the High Court.
In an affidavit on behalf of a Gibraltar-registered company, Illium Properties Limited, which bought the house last year, businessman Mr Dermot Desmond spoke of his life-long fascination with Georgian buildings and was critical of the Corporation's handling of Illium's application for planning permission for certain restoration works on Ms Connolly's former home at 71 Merrion Square.
He said the house 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.
There was now a unique opportunity to restore this house. Ms Connolly had not had the resources to do so but the applicant company 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.
Mr Desmond's affidavit grounded an application by Illium for leave to take proceedings against Dublin Corporation.
Moving the application, Mr Michael O'Donnell, for the company, said all Illium wished to do was restore it to its original condition. The company had engaged architects and other specialists with knowledge of the Georgian period, including Sir Arthur Gibney.
It had applied in November 2000 for permission to restore the house and permission was granted. It was necessary to demolish a 1960s extension to the house, which was neither attractive nor appropriate to the building. 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 but it transpired the conservation officer had not read the documents and was not familiar with the proposals for the wall, counsel said.
He complained the Corporation had had a two-month period to deal with the matter but had failed to do so.
Then, he said, the Corporation had asked his client to apply 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 his client to do so, counsel said.
His client had refused and had asked the Corporation to make a decision on the application for permission for the additional restoration works.
That same day, September 10th last, the Corporation had made a request for further information about the proposed works, counsel said.
It was his case that was not a bona fide request as the Corporation already had all the necessary information and documents required for it to make a decision. The request was a device to get more time for the Corporation when it already had had adequate time.
Mr Justice Kelly granted leave to the company to seek an order quashing the Corporation's request of September 10th for further information about the planned restoration scheme.
He further granted leave to the company to ask 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 matter was returned to November 6th.
