The High Court in Ireland quashed a decision by a County Council not to register a certificate of compliance on completion (a “Certificate”) under the Building Control Regulations 1997 (the “Regulations”).

Under the Regulations, a Certificate must be submitted to a building control authority and its details included on the statutory register before the building may be opened, occupied or used.

In Dromaprop Ltd v Leitrim County Council [2024] IEHC 234, the applicant carried out works on a hotel for the purpose of converting it to use as accommodation. The applicant submitted a Certificate to the County Council in respect of the above-ground floors only, because basement floors were to be closed off and remain unused until a later date.

The Council made a limited request for technical information, which the applicant supplied. Over 50 days after the Certificate was submitted, the Council declared it invalid on the basis that it related solely to the above-ground phase of the development. In the words of the High Court, the Council’s declaration was made on an objection-in-principle basis, grounded on a new concept of lack of “collaborative compliance” of uncertified parts of the development with certified parts. The Court was critical of the manner in which the grounds were set out, in an unspecified way, identified by reference to 16 chapter headings of the Regulations.

Quashing the Council’s decision, the Court confirmed the following principles:

• A Council must validate and register a Certificate within the statutory timeline of 21 days unless, within that period, it decides the Certificate is invalid or seeks specified further information.
• If a Council seeks further information, a seven-day period runs from the date of receipt of the requested information regardless of when, within the 21-day period, the information was sought.
• On expiry of the seven-day period, unless the Council decides on further action, it is obliged to register the Certificate. The applicant is entitled to demand that the Certificate be entered onto the statutory register. A Council’s refusal to register is not only amenable to an order of certiorari (a quashing order) but also to an order of mandamus requiring the Council to validate and register the Certificate.
• Any rejection of the Certificate following a request for further information must be based on the further information received. Any fundamental objection with a Certificate, independent of the request for further information, would be raised from the outset: a reasonable Council acting rationally would not request further information which was not capable of resolving a fundamental objection.
• There is a clear statutory intention to permit partial certification of buildings or projects. Any issue raised about compliance must identify something specific about the particular development that creates a breach of the Regulations. A Council cannot simply assert the worst as regards an uncertified part of the project even if there is no basis to suggest a breach of the Regulations.

This judgment provides helpful guidance on the Regulations. Having been handed down less than four months after proceedings were issued, it is also a welcome indication of expedition facilitated by the new Planning and Environmental Division of the High Court.

The authors would like to thank Kate O’Connor for her contribution to this post.