David Norris (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. He is a just and decent man and this is a case of clear and flagrant injustice. I hope the Minister of State may be able to rectify it in some way. It concerns an interesting property on the Dublin quays. It is about the only early 18th century house left in that range of buildings. It is used as a post office and my informant's family has lived there since 1913, so there is a long family tradition. The Minister of State will be aware of the living over the shop scheme tax incentive. I was involved in it in a small way through the Dublin Chamber of Commerce. It was a useful scheme because it helped to bring life back into the city and encouraged people to improve their premises. This property was designated for the tax incentive. The family applied and in 2004 obtained full planning permission and a full, first-stage certificate from Dublin City Council assuring them that development was compliant with the objectives and the criteria of the scheme. On the basis of that certification my informant and his family borrowed far more than their income would normally sustain to fund the work. However suddenly, just after Christmas, they were told by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that it would not issue them with a certificate of reasonable cost, which is necessary for the application to be successful, because the floor area of the residential portion of the building was too large. I have come across this before and it is terribly silly. If our objective is to preserve these buildings and make it possible for people to live over the shop we must recognise that Dublin is a Georgian city and the spatial dimensions are different and need to be respected. To put this kind of qualification in, to fail to notice it until a person has borrowed money and invested heavily, is unacceptable.

I have the name of the inspector and can pass it on to the Minister of State so that he can know this is not a wild claim. The application was submitted in 2004 and the inspector accepted that the costs were reasonable and that the work was being carried out to a satisfactory standard. However, after a site inspection in January 2006 he suddenly raised the issue of the floor area, although following a previous inspection in October 2005, no such concerns were expressed. My informant was placed in a false position. His application was properly made, he was told he met all the criteria and no question was raised at the initial inspection in October 2005. Yet suddenly, when he had borrowed the money and just about completed the work, he was told the floor area is wrong. Naturally the man and his family were surprised and devastated that this decision was made after they had almost completed the work and incurred the expense. In a human sense that is terribly unfair on decent people trying earning a living. The authorities had advised them to proceed. As full planning permission had already been obtained before the granting of the first-stage certificate by Dublin City Council, the scale of the development was clear. The council had the full planning permission, it knew the floor area, but did not raise it on foot of the drawings or the first inspection in October 2005. Suddenly when the money was all borrowed and spent, the council told the family there was a problem. That is not good enough. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government told them that while it is supposed to inspect the building before the work started, it often did not manage this and preferred to inspect closer to completion. It advised them to go ahead with the work provided they could justify the costs. It did not raise the issue of the area of the house or indicate that this might be a problem in any way.

I understand that this case is completely unprecedented in its severity. No local authority has granted a certificate for a development which the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government subsequently refused to do. They have also been informed that no formal procedure exists for an appeal or review of the situation. I tabled this matter on the Adjournment because this is the only means of recourse to justice for these people.

The building is a protected structure, the only pre-20th century building to survive on Usher's Quay. It dates from before 1730, contains elements of much older buildings in its fabric and is possibly the oldest building on the south quays. It also forms the only surviving element of a 1916 battle site as the original Nos. 1 to 4 were destroyed by artillery fire. The building has been in use as a post office for over a century and has been operated by this family since 1913.

A considerable portion of the costs involved in the renovation was spent on structural works as the building was in a poor structural condition. This was in no small part because an elderly relative who lived there was reluctant to invest because Dublin Corporation had threatened a compulsory purchase order for a road widening scheme. The machinations of our city authorities have had a considerable impact on this family. I do not suggest there was any evil intent but this is an innocent family running a business we all need, namely, keeping a post office going in an area where it provides a community service, and post offices are regularly closed down. The family lives over the shop, an objective of everybody in the city, and is being frustrated in its effort to restore an important 18th century building.

The building is laid out in a small number of large rooms, rather than the converse and that seems to be the problem. If that is always to be the case no Georgian building will receive this kind of grant and I cannot believe the Government intends that to be so. The accommodation comprises one single and two double bedrooms. Subdivision of the residence to create multiple units would involve the destruction of much of the Georgian and Victorian internal fabric of the building and replace the 18th century floor plan with cramped and oddly proportioned rooms.

The family intended to restore the only 18th century building to remain on this part of Dublin's quays in the spirit of its original use as a family home. It feels it has acted in good faith and in reliance on the certificate which was provided by Dublin City Council. As the living-over-the-shop scheme requires that all qualifying work be completed by June 2006, it incurred the full cost of the renovation rather than seeking to make the work more affordable by phasing it in. As a result it is in a much worse financial position than had it never been accepted for the scheme. The family has not undertaken a commercial development but the renovation of a house where generations of a family have lived. If it is denied the living-over-the-shop tax relief it may be unable to sustain the financial burden of living in its home.

This jeopardises the existence of the post office too. This is an awful situation in which people were misled into believing that they would get a grant. The family borrowed substantially, did exactly the kind of work we want and at a late stage the approval was withdrawn. I appeal to the Minister of State instead of penalising these decent people to attempt to find some mechanism whereby they will not be driven out of their business and home and an important social amenity for the community in this part of Dublin's inner city is extinguished.