OVER 100 APARTMENTS in Dublin 12 have been left vacant for more than three years over alleged building regulation violations, which the developer is disputing in court.

Lengthy planning documents pertaining to the site show that developers were asked to provide paperwork to determine how much daylight would be let into one studio apartment.

Planning documents filed with Dublin City Council – dating from almost a decade ago – show the steps the developer took to deliver the two blocks of apartments. 

A total of 104 apartments were completed along the Old Naas Road and Kylemore Road, in Dublin, in 2022. The two blocks of mixed units comprise two studio apartments, 22 one-bed apartments, 66 two-beds and 14 three-beds.

Plans for the apartments were first approved in 2017 following an application by firm Arcourt Limited, owned by developer Vincent Cosgrave, after a number of bungalows were demolished at the site.

The building has sat idle since its completion three years ago. Local Green Party councillor Ray Cunningham recently asked Dublin City Council to provide an update on the status of the apartments, as constituents cited their dissatisfaction with their vacancy.

In response, the council’s executive said that the apartments were subject to ongoing legal proceedings and that an update to the case would be made available in September.

A spokesperson told The Journal that the council has served a building control enforcement notice, which is issued to property owners instructing them to make changes to buildings after alleged breaches of regulations.

“This enforcement notice has been appealed by the developer to the District Court and awaits a full hearing,” the spokesperson said, adding that it cannot provide a further comment.

No commencement order 

Almost immediately after construction began, Arcourt submitted a retention application because it did not submit a commencement order, which developers are legally obligated to file to notify the council at least four weeks before construction begins.

The retention application, a document seeking permission to keep buildings and other structures that have been constructed without the proper paperwork, was accepted.

A subsequent planner’s report in November 2020 details how the developer was issued an enforcement notice for not providing a commencement notice at the time. The council’s executive said last year that the developer did not appeal this order.

According to a Senior Building Surveyor in Dublin, Arcourt and Cosgrave were summarily convicted in November 2022 of providing false and misleading information to the Building Control Authority and for not providing the necessary commencement notice.

A second enforcement notice – relating to an application to change the cladding on the top of the buildings – was issued later. The developer has disputed this notice and the matter is before the District Court, the surveyor said. 

No daylight assessment for last-minute changes

Towards the end of construction, the developers sought to change one of the three-bed flats into two separate units, a studio and two-bedroom apartment, according to the document. It also applied to put an office on the ground floor and change the external cladding at the top of the buildings.

According to the decision, Dublin City Council accepted the changes, but first asked that the developer provide additional documentation to prove that the new studio apartment unit met minimum daylight requirements. At the time, at least 2% of a studio apartment’s lighting had to come from a natural source.

The council also requested that Arcourt provide a rationale for the addition of an office space on the ground floor of the second block of apartments, and suggested that they consider using metal or zinc cladding over a grey finish.

Records show that the daylight assessment documents were submitted approximately one year after the initial request from the council, which refused to accept the assessments from the developer as the firm had missed the deadline. The council then withdrew the application.

A representative of the council’s executive said in a letter to a development consultancy group in July 2022: “I regret to inform you that the planning authority is unable to accept any submission of additional information, as it was not received during the period of six months from the date of request of the additional information.”

They added: “I am therefore obliged to inform you that this application has been noted on the register as withdrawn.”

An application withdrawal does not mean that permission has been rejected, but rather that the changes cannot be accepted in its current form. There are no further documents relating to the site since July 2022.

Arcourt’s development has been vacant as a result of the ongoing legal proceedings. Local councillors are unsure what the cause of the delay is, and some are concerned that over the potential decay of the building.