On Monday morning, the High Court set a date for another hearing on whether the company contracted to build and manage an IPAS centre on the site of the former Crown Paints factory off the Malahide Road in Coolock will be approved to proceed.
In the light of the conflicting applications, Justice David Holland directed the participants in the case over to Justice Richard Humphreys, who set a date for July 17 and 18 at which time the defendants can seek again for the case to be struck out while the plaintiffs can put the case for an injunction.
That in itself represents a considerable victory for the plaintiffs as the opposing parties – Townbe Unlimited who are the contractors for the centre, Dublin City Council and the Chief State Solicitor’s Office – had again sought for the case to be struck out.
Their basis for strike out is that the plaintiff’s case is frivolous – solely based on the arrogant assumption and claim that it was “bound to fail”.
Some observers of the progress of the case since last October, when Justice Holland dismissed the plaintiff’s initial case, believe that the attitude of Townbe and the state may have irritated the Court.
It follows on from a ruling on February 24 by Justice Holland which effectively allowed the plaintiffs to resubmit their affidavits but also to give the state, DCC and Townbe another chance to request a strike out. He has now rejected that strike out, and it will be up to the defendants to submit a proper argument for such an outcome in July, something which it would appear they have not deigned to do so far.
My impression is that they failed to take seriously the objections on various grounds – most especially that any exemption does not cover work to remove dangerous asbestos from the site – and appeared to almost arrogantly assume that the Court would throw out the case for the plaintiffs following Justice Holland’s initial refusal to grant them an injunction against the IPAS centre last October.
Justice Holland told the plaintiffs on Monday that they will not be liable for the costs of the defendants. Again, that was something which it might have been felt was hanging over the plaintiffs and acted as a potential dissuader to them continuing to pursue the matter – as Justice Holland clearly believes they have the right to.
The main case put by the plaintiffs, as contained in the affidavit submitted by Alan Croghan, is that they are objecting on the grounds that the former ‘Crown Paint Production Plant’ is not a ‘Light Industrial Building’ and that as a ‘Pre-63’ building it cannot be defaced in any way.
That raises the issue regarding the asbestos that was mixed in with the cement when Dublin Corporation, now Dublin City Council, approved the building of the paint production plant in 1960 and which was completed in 1961. The foundation, floors, internal walls and external walls have asbestos mixed-in with the cement.
The roof, which Townbe have claimed they have an exemption to remove 51% of, has asbestos in the ceiling, the insulation and in the roof tiles. There is asbestos in every fire door and there is also a high reading of ‘pH’ levels and ammonia. There are also nine ‘Pre-63’ lead pipes two metres underground that are now covered over with cement. One of the pipes burst in 1990 causing flooding below and above ground.
The plaintiffs therefore argue that the building is dangerous, and that it cannot be designated as a ‘light industrial building’ which can be exempted from normal planning guidelines and restrictions. They claim that as it is the building is not fit for human habitation and that the asbestos needs to be completely removed by experts in that field and not in the causal manner suggested by Townbe.
The point made by the plaintiffs is that the designation of the site means that it is not covered as are a ‘light industrial building’ and ‘special building’ under the exempted development regulations cited by Townbe with the support of Dublin City Council and the state as represented by the Chief State Solicitor’s office.
One of the plaintiffs also refers in their affidavit to the “questionable actions of the former high-ranking RUC Officer; Mr. Alan Mains who is employed by Mr. Paul Collins.” The plaintiff claims that Mains – whose role I referred to earlier this year – has been engaged with an NGO in attempting to create the impression of community consultation and approval.
Given that Paul Collins of Townbe Unlimited had notified the City Council that his company was planning to begin work on the Crown Paints site in May 2024 by the time the case returns to court on July 18 their plans will have been held up for more than a year.
On Monday, Justice Holland noted the statement by Bernard Dunleavy representing Townbe that not only have his clients been unable to gain entry to the site due to the presence of protestors, but that they are unlikely to be able to commence any work on the site “in the near future.”
In my view, that represents a considerable achievement on the part of those opposed to the proposal for an IPAS centre who have faced a concerted campaign to discredit them backed by the full resources of the state.
As it stands, the Coolock case along with that initiated by Westmeath County Council’s refusal to grant an exemption to the contractors for a proposed new IPAS centre at Lissywollen, represent an ongoing obstacle to state plans to fast track the new centres that they need in order to facilitate the ongoing arrival of large numbers of applicants for asylum – mostly, as we have seen, without grounds.