Council-owned apartments in 24-unit complex continue to sit idle after years of disuse
Clarendon Court was first developed in the early 2000s but has lain idle since a Fire Officer closed the premises in 2012. Photo via Google Maps
Three apartments owned by Waterford City and County Council in the Clarendon Court apartment complex on Penrose Lane continue to lie idle, with the building itself unused for more than a decade.
In total, the block stretches five-storeys high and contains 24 residential units. Built in the early 2000s, the building fell into disrepair and was closed by the fire officer in 2012.
Land registry records show that the apartments were acquired by the Council in 2022 and 2024. The Council also owns units 1 and 3 of the complex’s ground floor.
Another apartment in the complex is owned by Causeway Group CEO Sean Johnston.
Asked about the Council’s ultimate plans for the complex, and why it has lain idle for so long, Waterford City and County Council said: “Discussions are ongoing in progressing this critical city centre project between all stakeholders.”
The Council did not respond to questions on how much money had been used to acquire the apartments.
Despite the apartments having sat out of use for more than a decade, Clarendon Court is not registered on the Council’s Derelict Site Register - meaning the Council cannot raise derelict site levies.
The site has acted as a point of contention in recent years.
In January, Independent Councillor Donal Barry called for an independent review on the apartments: “Despite repeated requests, I have received no response outlining the total amount of taxpayers’ money already spent on this site,” he said.
“This lack of transparency is unacceptable, particularly given the scale and duration of the issue.”
Cllr Barry said that factoring in losses of rental income, along with associated legal costs and deals made for the CPO, the site could potentially cost the Council and consequently taxpayers millions of euros.
In 2021, Maurice Hartery of Slievekeale Road swapped two dilapidated commercial units at Clarendon Court in exchange for a property at 18 Viewmount Park on the Dunmore Road.
In a property management report, it was disclosed that: “It has long been a project of [The Council Housing Department] to acquire all units in this abandoned complex.”
“Such a prolonged and costly failure would not be tolerated in the private sector,” said Cllr Barry.
“It would trigger immediate intervention, clear accountability, and decisive corrective action.
“That this situation has been allowed to persist for so long, particularly in the context of an ongoing housing and homelessness crisis, is indefensible.”
Donal Ó Murchadha, an Executive Officer with the Council’s Housing Directorate, told Cllr Barry that the housing ‘delivery team’ would give a formal presentation on the complex.
More than three months later, no presentation has taken place.
In 2018, the Council had tried to issue a Compulsory Purchase Order for the entire complex but had the effort annulled.
A CPO is a legal mechanism in which a local authority can take land or property without the owner’s consent. The process is typically used when authorities acquire land for an infrastructure project or wish to revive derelict sites for commercial or residential use.
The Council’s attempts to CPO Clarendon court were scuppered due to an An Comisiún Pleanála (formerly an Bord Pleanála) appeal, that deemed the Council acted without providing due diligence.
The objectors were Brian Parker, Jack Cunningham, Anthony Kelly and Eileen Kelly.
Jack and Theresa Cunningham, who alleged were the owners of apartments 1, 5, 17, 22, 23 and 24, argued the Council acted out of proportion in its acquisition of a property that couldn’t be described as vacant.
Anthony and Eileen Kelly, owners of Apartment 3 in the complex, argued the CPO was an infringement of their property rights.
The Council claimed the acquisition was an ideal means of easing social housing waiting lists, and that renovations would cost €1.2 million.
Issues arose as Mr Cunningham argued he was in a position to refurbish the property, and had not been consulted beforehand. He said he had gotten a provisional quote of €345,000 to revive the property and return it to habitable use.
Throughout the process, difficulties arose as to the ownership of some apartment units. A formal management company had never been established at Clarendon Court.
Concern was raised that the Council had carried out the CPO based on a visual report with no accompanying written report.
It was agreed that while the site was vacant and unsightly, it did not adhere to the textbook definition of derelict. Before the CPO was made, there was no communication between Mr Cunningham and the Council on how to revive the property through alternative means.
Derek Daly, An Comisúin Pleanála’s planning inspector, acknowledged that the site was important in meeting the Council’s social housing needs.
However, the Council had not given proper notice to the lessees of the apartment who would be affected by the CPO, and were not named correctly in their notice, a breach of housing regulation.
In his conclusion, Mr Daly wrote: “I am not satisfied, having regard to the particular facts of this case, that adequate requirements in relation to complying with the stated provisions of the Housing Act 1966 and in particular the requirements as set out in the Third Schedule of that Act, that the required statutory provisions have been adhered to and evidence was presented by the objectors confirming this to be the position.”
More than eight years on, and the complex still lies idle. Projected renovation costs have undoubtedly skyrocketed since 2018, while questions over how much money the Council have spent on the apartments remain unanswered.
