The High Court ordered the committal of architect David Grant to prison for six months but suspended the order for 12 months on condition that he complete agreed restoration works to four buildings at 7–10 Upper Gardiner Street, Dublin. The court also required him, through his solicitor, to keep Dublin City Council informed of progress so the works could be supervised and monitored.
The order, made by Mr Justice Declan Budd on 24 November 2008, followed nearly three years of proceedings over unauthorised alterations to the buildings. Dublin City Council had sought orders under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to stop development and restore the properties.
Grant bought the four houses in late 2003 and began work without a planning application. The judgment said the houses were interconnected, structural walls were affected, decorative plasterwork was removed, and bathrooms, partitions and suspended ceilings were installed. In July 2004, Mr Justice Quirke ordered Grant to stop development works. In January 2005, a further order by consent required him to carry out refurbishment in line with recommendations by conservation architect David Slattery and subject to specified conditions.
Grant later accepted that some work was unsatisfactory and that he had failed to comply with the consent order. The court heard that efforts to raise funds and sell properties encountered difficulties. It also heard that Grant had purchased a hotel and another property in England, transactions that the Council brought to the court’s attention in November 2007. Mr Justice Budd said Grant had been less than forthright about his property dealings outside Ireland and had delayed in focusing on the restoration.
The judge said the Council represented the public interest in protecting the buildings for their artistic, architectural and historical value. He noted that Grant had admitted failures and had not relied on technical arguments to avoid the agreed work. The court had previously allowed time for him to raise funds and carry out the restoration.
Mr Justice Budd set out the suspended committal as a consequence of non-compliance with the consent order, while giving Grant 12 months to complete its programme of works. Both parties were given liberty to apply to the court on notice to the other party. The judgment does not state whether the works were subsequently completed or whether the committal order took effect.