Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A JUDGE HAS refused to grant a Dublin solicitor a licence to open a pub in the Temple Bar area, saying there are enough licenced premises in the area.
Judge Karen Fergus said there were enough public houses around 5 Aston Quay to provide for the 130 customers that Aston Hospitality Ltd, of which solicitor Dermot O’Neill is a director, planned to cater for.
Judge Fergus told barrister Kerry-Jane Morgan, counsel for a number of objectors, that her clients which included local residents were entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their homes.
The judge said Mr O’Neill purchased 5 Aston Quay in June 2014 and obtained planning permission to convert the top floor into a one-bedroom apartment where he intended to live. He had leased the first and second floors to a charity.
Judge Fergus said the ground floor and basement area were previously incorporated into Numbers 3 and 4 Aston Quay and operated as a nightclub and bar under a theatre licence.
Publican seven-day licence
Mr O’Neill had reinstated a wall between Numbers 4 and 5, with the intention to open the pub on the ground floor and basement. He had applied to the Circuit Court for a declaratory order which would guarantee him a publican’s seven-day on-licence if the premises was completed in accordance with planning permission.
The full licence would have allowed him to sell beer, wines and spirits once the premises had been renovated.
Judge Fergus said in a reserved judgment that the objectors (one of which is RTÉ Space expert Leo Enright) claimed the new premises were unfit, inconvenient and unsuitable for the needs of residents in the neighbourhood.
They had also claimed that there were enough licensed premises in the area. An Garda Síochána, the Fire Authority and other licensed premises in the area had not objected to the application.
No need for one more
Judge Fergus said there were 13 seven day on-licence premises in the neighbourhood and the creation of one more was unnecessary.
“Of course there are pros and cons of city centre living but the residents have given evidence that their lives are being negatively impacted by the numbers of pubs that are already operating in the area,” the judge said.
Constance Cassidy SC, who appeared with Nicola-Jane Andrews for Aston Hospitality Ltd, had told the court that Mr O’Neill, a solicitor with the Director of Public Prosecutions, had always wanted to open a pub and intended to take a leave of absence if the application was granted.
Judge Fergus refused Aston Hospitality’s application.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Plastic cards!!! About time, only in Ireland does a student ID look more official then the drivers licence
@ Alan, very true! My friend was in the States and said they don’t accept our drivers license as ID. A joke!
i think they should just ban driving under the influence of alcohol completely, get it over and done with
Good idea but not possible as even using mouthwash or having some sherry trifle would potentially mean you fail a zero level breath test.
Finally. It’s nice to see some initiative & solid action.
Newly qualified “R” drivers will have completed 12 mandatory driving lessons and passed the driving test like everyone before them, I don’t understand the need for restrictions.
The entire driving licence-driving education system in this country is a farce. I obtained my full driving licence after only 3 months on a provisional licence. My driving test was done in the daytime in near-perfect weather conditions. I passed with flying colours. Yet nowhere in my training did I learn how to drive in driving snow conditions, in torrential rain, in icy conditions, in thick fog, at night, or indeed in any combination. Too often I see drivers at night with either no lights on or full headlights coming straight at me. We need to have a proper training system put in place that teaches people how to drive in all weather conditions similar to what is done in Finland (where they have driving centres with roads that have simulated ice conditions, gravel tracks, etc.). “R” licences are a good idea too and certainly lower drink-driving limits, but not just applied to young people – they should be applied to everyone.
how can you have different punishments for the same crime?
A lot of the ideas and initiatives are extensions or modifications to plans that were already in place; I do agree blood alcohol levels should be zero no exceptions and match that with a VRT & Tax exemption on vehicles for pubs who provide local transport. More fundamentally we need to start teaching people to drive in schools as a formal subject with the objective that everyone leaves secondary school with their full license on an ‘R’ plate.
As part of the educational process young drivers need to learn about all aspects of driving from vehicle care & maintenance to driving in difficult conditions. Many young drivers dangerously modify vehicles which can affect the handling, stopping distance and safety features of a car and don’t understand the physics behind the changes or dangerous consequences as a result of poorly modified components.
Maybe then we will see a radical change in driver behaviour and reduced road deaths amongst the most vulnerable demographic in our community. The last element we need is high visibility enforcement; we don’t have it and it needs to be introduced; round the clock checkpoints, mandatory breath testing, and car seizures for non-compliance with road traffic legislation. If we are serious we can reduce road injury & death, lower insurance premiums and be less nervous as our kids head towards driving age.
If a tester believes a person has passed the exam and is capable of driving in an educated, safe and responsible manner there should be no need for extra punishments. I agree with the extra penalty points for learner drivers as I think far too many people get their learners permit and head onto the roads with no training and in many cases no full licence driver.
The thing is people generally don’t do their driving test drunk or pick up their mobile in the middle of it. It’s these kind of behaviours that need to be eradicated from the driving mindset, doing a great U point turn during your test doesn’t mean you wont run someone over while using your phone while driving.
So someone who has their licence for less than 2 years should be punished more severely for drink driving than someone who has theirs for ten?
Don’t see why they couldn’t just set the blood alcohol limit at 0mg/100ml, it’d be a lot simpler than creating three different classes of drivers and different laws for each. The clarity would have benefits in itself.
Because it would mean potentially failing a breath test after you used mouthwash in the morning!
In Finland you have to be tested on a skid pan. And you don’t get to drive on public roads until you have your full licence. The licence test itself takes about 1 year that’s if you pass all the tests, if you fail one you have to start again from the beginning.
Probably a little away from the topic but why not just make it a zero tolerance drink driving policy….it amazes me that all countries don’t have this?
The Road Safety Authority will be put in charge of the driving licence system and the testing of commercial vehicles for roadworthiness.
So what will the staff who currently issue licences do?
And we are still left with 2 vehicle testing organisations.
What a waste of money!
have your say