Dublin aparthotel dispute goes to Commercial Court

George Sell George Sell Uploaded 22 October 2019

LinkedIn

Ireland: A dispute over a proposed seven-storey aparthotel development in Dublin has come before the Commercial Court.

The owner of an adjoining property has expressed concern its “right to light” would be adversely affected by the proposed development at James Street, Dublin 8.

Tathony Holdings Ltd initiated proceedings earlier this year, claiming JSH James Street Hotel Ltd planned to build an aparthotel there with hotel facilities, bicycle spaces and ground-floor cafe.

Tathony, which owns a nearby apartment block, Tathony House, at Bow Lane West, objected to the plan and claimed the proposed aparthotel would interfere with its “easement of light”.

According to a report in The Times, Patrick Leonard SC, for JSH, told Mr Justice Robert Haughton the plaintiff was consenting to his client’s application to have the case fast-tracked in the Commercial Court.

Tathony is seeking declarations that its premises at Tathony House is accommodated by an “easement of light” over the defendant’s property at 180, 182, 183 and 184 James Street.

It wants to restrain any development that would interfere with the alleged easement. In an affidavit seeking to have the case fast-tracked, Mark Cosgrave, a director of JSH, said Tathony’s planning objection revealed that the plaintiff was “primarily concerned” that the granting of permission could thwart Tathony’s development ambitions for its own property.

The James Street site was acquired by JSH earlier this year, having been brought to market in January by CBRE with a guide price of €5.75 million.

The site is at present “substantially derelict” and includes a large, disused warehouse building. CBRE said: “The site offers a developer the opportunity to acquire an ideally located site, with excellent transport links and connectivity to the city centre, with full planning to develop an extensive aparthotel development, with potential to develop a residential scheme subject to planning.”

The defendant has substantial borrowings secured against the site with repayment obligations accruing and it is a “commercial imperative” for it to progress the development of the site expeditiously, said Cosgrave.

He added that a report previously prepared by consultants had analysed the impact of the proposed development and concluded it would improve the daylight conditions of a number of properties north of the site.

 

LinkedIn

Be in the know.

Subscribe to our newsletter »
Subscribe

Thank you sponsors