The High Court has rejected an application by three neighbouring property owners to compel Dublin City Council to take further action over a seriously neglected house on Northumberland Road in Dublin.
In a judgment dated 14 December 2007, Mr Justice O’Higgins ruled that No. 19 was not a “derelict site” within the meaning of the Derelict Sites Act 1990. He said the Council was therefore not in default of its statutory duty to take reasonable steps to prevent land in its area becoming or continuing to be derelict.
The applicants, owners of adjoining properties at Nos. 17 and 21, sought an order of mandamus requiring the Council to comply with that duty. They argued that water entering No. 19 and the spread of rot could damage their properties and detract from their amenity. The Council disputed that the statutory definition was met and said it had taken reasonable steps.
The judgment records that No. 19 was dilapidated, neglected and in urgent need of refurbishment. The Council had inspected the property repeatedly, issued notices under the 1990 Act, and arranged propping works after its Dangerous Building Section inspected the structure. Four broken windows were replaced following the notices. The Council then decided not to take further action under the Derelict Sites Act.
The judge accepted that the house was in a “derelict condition”, but said that alone was insufficient. The statutory definition also required the land to detract, or be likely to detract materially, from the amenity, character or appearance of the surrounding neighbourhood. He interpreted those terms as concerning the neighbourhood and its surroundings, rather than damp or water ingress affecting the interior of an adjoining property. Photographs showed the exterior, after the window repairs, was unexceptional, he said.
The applicants’ engineers considered the propping inadequate, while the Council’s engineers took a different view. With no oral evidence or cross-examination, the judge said he could not resolve whether the building was dangerous and could not find that it was.
The judge also rejected the Council’s argument that the applicants had no standing to bring the case, finding they had a real practical interest because their properties adjoined No. 19. The Council’s delay objection was not pursued at the hearing, and the judge said the applicants could not be faulted for waiting while they believed the Council would act.
The application failed. The court did not order the Council to serve a notice or carry out works, and made no finding that the house was dangerous. The judgment noted that the property was deteriorating and might cause significant problems in future, but said a mandatory order based on that possibility was inappropriate.