COMHAIRLE CONTAE ÁTHA CLIATH THEAS
SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
MEETING OF RATHFARNHAM AREA COMMITTEE
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
HEADED ITEM NO. 6
HEADED ITEM: LORETO ABBEY
Subsequent to the report to the Committee’s June meeting (see below) an email issued to the members on 14th July last stating
“The enforcement proceedings against Lozeto Limited listed for 15th June last were not heard as there were too many cases listed for that day. Apparently this is not an uncommon occurrence. However, a representative from the receiver was present in court and he gave information to our solicitor which indicated that whereas Lozeto Limited owns the old Abbey complex of buildings, it does not have an interest in the residential area or common areas. It has now been established that these common areas are registered to Oze Developments, and proceedings have issued. I expect that these proceedings, and the proceedings already in train against Danninger Limited, will be listed for the September court sittings”
I have been informed by the solicitor acting for the Council in this matter that the cases against Danninger Limited and Oze Developments are listed for hearing on 16th November.
The solicitor is trying to arrange an earlier date with the Court Service.
Report to meeting of Rathfarnham Area Committee, Tuesday, 8 June 2010
HEADED ITEM NO. 8
LORETO ABBEY
Flooding in Carpark – Condition 11
As previously reported, Enforcement proceedings were initiated against Lozeto Limited for non-compliance with condition 11 of planning permission Register Reference S00A/0554 insofar as it relates to the drainage arrangements on the site.
This matter was due in court on 4th May last but the case was not heard. It is listed for hearing on 15th June.
An Enforcement Notice regarding this matter has also been served on Danninger Limited, the company which apparently carried out the development, and in whose name the bond for completion of works was lodged.
Legal proceedings will be instituted on foot of this Enforcement Notice also.
Bond – Condition 26
The Council has submitted a claim to De Montford Insurance Company PLC on the bond of €465,964, lodged under Condition 26 “….. to secure the provision and satisfactory completion of roads, sewers, watermains, drains, car parks, open spaces, tree protection and other services required in connection with the development, ….”
The insurance company has responded to the Council’s claim stating that “Our liability under the bond is on failure by the Developer so to do the Surety shall satisfy and discharge the damages sustained by the Council”
The solicitor who is acting for the Council in relation to the Enforcement Notices has advised that any proceedings to enforce the bond would have to be taken in the High Court, and would be very costly.
He has further advised that in his opinion the bond is unenforceable because it is worded to “satisfy and discharge damages sustained by the Council”, (presumably because the intention was to safeguard areas to be taken-in-charge), and the Council has not and cannot sustain damages because the development is private property in its entirety, and no part of it will be taken in charge.