Welcome to our Public Beta Site - What does this mean?
Dublin: 12 °C Thursday 24 May, 2012

Priory Hall residents protest property stalemate

HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE turned out to protest over the continued stalemate regarding the Priory Hall apartment complex in north Dublin.

Private residents were ordered out of the complex four months ago over fire safety concerns.

The residents are currently being house in alternative accommodation by Dublin City Council, though the council has launched a legal bid to have this responsibility transferred from the council.

Residents and their supporters gathered in Donaghmede today for a protest march aimed at highlighting the ongoing stalemate between them and Dublin City Council over the future of their homes.

The residents committee has told TheJournal.ie that they are willing to sit down with the government, the council and the banks involved in the property to come to an agreeable solution over the property, which requires remedial work to bring it up to the required fire safety standards.

However, residents say that they feel no closer to a solution now than when the safety issues first came to light.

Speaking at today’s protest, Fianna Fáil Senator Averil Power accused Minister for the Environment Phil Hogan of “passing the buck” on the Priory Hall issue to Dublin City Council. Power also claimed that Hogan is “being given a warped view of events by council officials” and that he needs to meet with the residents himself.

Priory Hall residents ‘no closer to a solution’ >

Read Next:

Comments (19 Comments)

  • Jim Brady 12/02/12 #
    Report this comment

    I can’t understand why a deficiency in building regs/fire safety etc was not picked up at the conveyancy or building survey stage?

    Reply
    • DaveC 12/02/12 #
      Report this comment

      A surveyor can generally only comment on what is visible. At completion stage all details are hidden due to the presence of plastered ceilings and walls, so cannot be seen. Any defects can only be spotted by constant monitoring during construction.

    • Jim Brady 12/02/12 #
      Report this comment

      Ok, fair enough. But how can the building
      1) get planning permission if it is a fire risk?
      2) sail through the buyer’s conveyancy process prior to final exchange/purchase if it didn’t have the relevant paperwork?
      I’m sorry, I just don’t understand how this could have happened. Has anything changed (apart from nobody building), i.e. could it happen again?

    • DaveC 12/02/12 #
      Report this comment

      Not much detail is required for a building to get planning permission. The finer details are drawn up later by architects & engineers after planning and these are usually correct on paper. Problems arise when the details are not adhered to and short cuts are taken by builders to save costs. There is no system of supervision in place so the design team cannot know for sure if what they have specified is actually built. Nothing has changed yet as far as I know and there are many many buildings constructed in the past few years with similar defects, not just priory hall.

  • jimbo 12/02/12 #
    Report this comment

    Hogan is a wimp these should sit outside the dail until they get a new house to live in

    Reply
  • Joan Featherstone 12/02/12 #
    Report this comment

    This is bloody disgraceful, out of their homes for five months!!!! Someone needs to get the finger out, they should be outside the dail, they will be forgotten if they don’t keep up the momentum! I really feel for them, your home is your haven.

    Reply
  • Luke McGregor 12/02/12 #
    Report this comment

    I’ve been following this story from overseas. I am at a loss for words: Why hasn’t this been resolved yet? The slow action on justice reflects shamefully on the higher-ups. These people need their lives back.

    Reply
  • Tom Mulligan 12/02/12 #
    Report this comment

    I watched that building go up. it was a bloody disgrace how they got to sell them. the scaffolding was mismatch the safety for the workers was not there. and no I didn’t work on them.ultimately the goverment is responsible. they allow self build regulations. now pay the price of your incompetent attitude to home owners. pay to rehouse these honest people who bought their homes in good faith.

    Reply
  • Tom Mulligan 12/02/12 #
    Report this comment

    100% agree he should be sacked

    Reply
  • Eileen Gabbett 12/02/12 #
    Report this comment

    It is so desperately unfair. Why are there no sackings or resignations on this . Heads should roll.

    Reply
  • Martin Dorgan 12/02/12 #
    Report this comment

    Another speculator off the hook at the expense of misfortunate residents .people directly affected by these actions similar To Vita Cortex should have first call on financial settlement before banks.The law should be changed to make this possible .

    Reply
  • terry 12/02/12 #
    Report this comment

    Caveat emptor

    “Buyer Beware’

    Look the system of self regulation doesn’t work. Peoples lived are at stake here literally. I wonder what work civil servants actually perform when I read articles like this. The residents should take a case against the local authority for negligence. I also think we should follow the same processes as the uk where building inspectors turn up randomly during the build and can halt the process then and there if needs be. Also from a social perspective we need a social living grade system so living conditions in apartments are not too cramped. For example an apartment is a grade 3 so can house 3 people – bedrooms and shared space lounge etc would need to be a minimium size.

    Reply
  • Sid Cassidy 12/02/12 #
    Report this comment

    This is a farce ,where is homebond ,where are the insurers , where is the surveyer that the passed the apartment.
    It seems the only people that are protected in all this process are the bankers who lent the money, wonder why that is !

    Reply
  • Andy Fleming 12/02/12 #
    Report this comment

    I really feel for these people. How the government can fund banks that are paying billions to unsecured bond holders and let this drag on is beyond me. I’d gladly pay more tax if I knew it was going to a worthy cause like getting these people into the homes they paid for.

    Reply
  • Tom Mulligan 12/02/12 #
    Report this comment

    700.000euro so far to house the tenants. what repair work would this have paid for.dcc deserve to lose this case on so many levels. do the right thing and give the people their homes back in a safe repaired state. wonder how much it cost to build them in the first place.

    Reply
  • Aidan Keogh 14/02/12 #
    Report this comment

    I couldn’t, in good faith, pay another red cent of that mortgage. The properties are totally worthless now and in terms of ‘merchantable quality’ were never fit for purpose. The serious financial stress of walking away from it, has to be less than the stress of trying to keep it. I feel for these people, refugees in their own land, while still paying for a home they’ll never have peace of mind in.

    Reply

Add New Comment