A NEIGHBOUR OF one of Dublin’s best-known gay bars has lost his second court action aimed at taking away its music, singing, and dancing licences, claiming the venue’s loud tunes kept him awake at night.

Tommy Bergin, who lives above the popular Street 66 bar on Parliament Street, brought the objection to the permits before Judge Máire Conneely at Dublin District Court.

However, she dismissed the action on several grounds, among them the location and character of the area, in a part of the city centre known for entertainment.

“I believe that in a location such as this on a busy street, it is not reasonable to expect that the music would be completely inaudible,” she ruled as she held that the bar was a suitable premises to keep the licences.

Council worker Bergin complained about the noise levels when music was played late on Friday and Saturdays, leaving him with sleepless nights, and he could make out not only the songs but also the lyrics of each tune.

Last year, the late Judge Marie Quirke had ordered that the maximum music volume be limited to the levels recommended by a sound expert witness.

She had ordered the bar to implement a ten-point drop in the music levels: 78 decibels in the front and 86 decibels in the back of the premises, which was undertaken.

However, Mr Bergin claimed today that the problem had not changed.

He said last year the songs he used to be able to hear mainly included Celine Dion and Whitney Houston tunes, but now it was Florence and the Machine or Britney Spears numbers, and “clap along, stomp along” tracks.

He told the court it had been an issue for three years, and after the lifting of COVID restrictions, the sound level “went bonkers”, the music went through the roof, and his apartment “was shaking”.

He stated that the noise level covenant with the building management company stipulated that music should not be audible in the adjoining premises.

Cross-examined by Dorothy Collins BL, for the bar, he was told invoices showed the works carried out by her client, who claimed she spent €50,000 on sound insulation measures.

However, he maintained the bills did not show a special outline of the work, and he could not be sure it was sound insulation.

Visibly upset, the bar owner, Siobhan Conmy, said she would do everything possible to resolve the issue with her neighbour.

Conor Duff BL, for Mr Bergin, told the court that based on the evidence, all roads lead back to the premises not being suited for the services and activities it offered.

The court heard that a speaker had been removed, sound limiters were used, and air conditioning was installed, which reduced noise because the venue did not have to leave doors or windows open.

Dismissing the action on several grounds, the judge held that little weight could be attributed to evidence of a building management company witness who supported the objection. That witness maintained there had been several complaints, but the judge said those complainants had not come to court to be questioned.

She also found that it was not a matter for the court to get involved in enforcing a covenant in a private lease.

The sound insulation value of the concrete floor was insufficient, and a higher standard may be required between domestic and communal spaces.

The expert used by Mr Bergin was of the view that the efforts by the bar had not worked, and it was not suitable for music or singing.

Other evidence from a Dublin City Council inspector’s tests was regarded as having little weight. Judge Conneely stated that this testing was subjective, which may have been sufficient as a starting point, but no further scientific testing was conducted by the official. She held that it was not independent evidence.

Regarding Mr Bergin’s claim that he could hear the lyrics which had been offset by turning on appliances like his washing machine, she noted his own engineer stated that if he opened his windows, external noises would further assist in mitigating the sound of the music.

She also noted that he had not engaged directly with the owner for three years, and the bar’s expert suggested that the discovery of a leak problem could be an opportunity to enhance insulation.

She noted that the bar had been licensed for several years. The experts agreed it was in line with building regulations, but domestic and commercial premises may require different standards.

Therein lies the problem, she said, as there were no specific standards to act as a reference point, “It is a dispute between the experts as to what is acceptable for a domestic and commercial premises side by side, and there was no EU law surrounding the appropriate levels.”