Bitter neighbour dispute over wall construction at Sutton strand
A bitter High Court dispute has broken out between prospective neighbours over the construction of a wall at a coastal site in a north Dublin suburb.Businessman René Collier and accountant Paul Feely are suing over construction works at the site on Dublin Road, Sutton, where Ciarán Cosgrave and Róisín McNeela – a doctor and company director respectively – seek to build their family home. Mr Collier and Mr Feely, both residents of Dublin Road, claim Dr Cosgrave and Ms McNeela breached the terms of their planning permission by building a wall beyond the boundaries of their site, leading to an encroachment on a Special Area of Conservation (Sac). Dr Cosgrave and Ms McNeela deny they are in breach of their planning permission, and say the wall – which is partially built – is in the correct position. READ MORE‘Things went horribly wrong’: How life changed for former TD Colm Keaveney Storm Chandra: ‘Devastation’ in Enniscorthy after flooding as Met Éireann warns ‘we’re not over the worst’Who is Gregory Bovino, the US border patrol’s would-be Napoleon with a viral ‘SS’ coat? If Trump goes after Ireland, he will also destroy a lot of US wealthThe wall, built to replace an existing, dilapidated one, separates the site from Sutton Strand, which looks out on to Dublin Bay.According to court documents, the couple claim Mr Collier and Mr Feely are attempting to prevent the construction of the house, and have embarked on a “campaign of harassment, intimidation, and obstruction” against them and those working at the site. “In my belief and experience, their true motive is to halt our build at any cost, including by misusing environmental and court processes, in order to preserve their private views,” Dr Cosgrave claims in a sworn statement.The couple allege that the men regularly engage in photographing and filming the site and them personally. In one alleged incident, Ms McNeela claims a person who she believed to be Mr Collier waded through waist-high water during a storm to photograph the site from the sea. The couple say they made numerous complaints to An Garda Síochána relating to the alleged conduct of Mr Collier and Mr Feely.Since works began in July 2025, Ms McNeela says their site has been inspected on at least 12 occasions by various authorities, on foot of complaints made by Mr Collier and Mr Feely. They have not received any direction to stop works at the site, says Ms McNeela. Mr Collier and Mr Feely deny allegations of harassment or any other wrongdoing. They say they “categorically refute” the suggestion that they are misusing environmental or court processes, and say they consider the proceedings necessary because of the issues raised in the case.In a sworn statement, Mr Collier says his documenting and photographing of the works was for the purposes of recording and reporting alleged environmental and planning law breaches.Mr Collier claims complaints to An Garda Síochána made by Dr Cosgrave and Ms McNeela relating to his alleged actions are baseless, and were “calculated to frighten and intimidate me”. Gardaí said the complaints were a civil matter, Mr Collier says. Similarly, Mr Feely said his engagements with gardaí following complaints “has been entirely civil”.This week, barrister John Kenny, appearing for Dr Cosgrave and Ms McNeela, instructed by FP Logue solicitors, moved an application seeking to vary a previous undertaking to the court to pause work on the wall.The variance was sought in circumstances where the construction of the house cannot reasonably take place until the wall is complete. This is because required heavy machinery would not be able to access the wall once the house foundations are laid, the court was told. The current gap in the wall measures between 4m and 5m, said Mr Kenny.Mr Justice David Holland acceded to the application, in effect allowing the couple to complete the wall’s construction. The judge said he saw no evidence that allowing construction on the gap in the wall would cause a significant environmental impact. The judge said he was not being asked to decide on this occasion whether the wall was built in the correct place or not. The judge noted that the couple’s decision to complete the wall is taken at their own risk, pending the ultimate outcome of the proceedings.The judge noted that the house – which is prefabricated – is in storage at the couple’s expense and that these costs may not be recoverable. He noted that the couple were not building a commercial premises, but “their home where they intend to live”. He said the couple had valid planning permission for the construction of the house.
