Sinn Féin TD John Brady and his wife Gayle Uí Bhradaigh told the High Court Wicklow County Council is wrong in insisting an attic conversion in their council home breached building regulations.
The couple are challenging the council's bid to evict them after they failed to get retention permission for the 2004 conversion to put an extra bedroom in their home in Kilbride Grove, Bray.
The council claims the work was a fire risk but Cormac O’Dúlacháin SC, for the couple, argued the council’s claim it was in breach of regulations was “100 per cent wrong”.
The council’s claim that a rooflight in the attic conversion, partly built by Mr Brady who is a carpenter, was not big enough for rescue purposes was wrong because there was already a full window at the gable end of the attic, counsel said.
This window was provided as part of the original construction and the entire attic space was originally built so a conversion could be carried out, as it has been in other houses in the area, Mr O’Dúlacháin said.
Counsel said it was also disputed fire doors were required at the ground and first floor levels.
Tenants for 14 years
The couple were told to either apply to the council for retention of the work, with a fire report from a professional with a minimum of €6.5 million indemnity insurance, or restore the house to its original condition.
They have lived in the house with their five children as council tenants for the last 14 years and told the council in 2004 of their desire to extend for their growing family when they sought financial assistance for the work but were told there was no money available.
Mr Justice Max Barrett was told, despite the fact that works carried out since the eviction notice by the Bradys meant the conversion was substantially in compliance with building regulations, the council had still not withdrawn the eviction notice.
‘Vendetta’
Mr Brady says he is being specifically targeted because of his criticism of the council, including of its conduct over the deaths of two of its firemen and his involvement in a homeless protest which led to a sit-in at Bray Town Hall.
The council denies any vendetta against him and says he had provided no evidence for such claims.
It says its primary concern has always been about the safety of the occupants of the attic conversion and the fire risk posed.
The fact the conversion is now substantially in compliance shows the works were required, it also argues.
It says the notice to quit resulted from the couple’s own action and it is entitled to carry out inspections of its housing stock at any time, which was what occurred in this case.
The Bradys are seeking declarations that the council’s decision is irrational, unreasonable, disproportionate, and in breach of their rights under the Constitution and European Convention on Human Rights.
The case continues.