McManuses seek to extend reach in D4 embassy belt
NOREEN McManus, the wife of the wealthy businessman and racehorse owner JP, is looking to extend the reach of her palatial home in the heart of Dublin’s embassy belt.
Records held at Dublin City Council’s planning department show that Mrs McManus’s architects, de Blacam and Meagher, submitted an application on June 30 to demolish an 861 sq ft single-storey bungalow to the rear of her 16,000 sq ft Ailesbury Road mansion, and replace it with a 2,152 sq ft two-storey dwelling which, upon completion, would be ancillary to the main house.
A further inspection of the planning files shows that council planners issued a social housing exemption certificate for the proposed development at 14A and 16A Ailesbury Road on July 19.
Mrs McManus acquired the main house — Nos 22–24 Ailesbury Road — the former home of developer Bernard McNamara, towards the end of 2011 for €10m. While the figure represented a €2.5m reduction on the €12.5m which had been sought by selling agents Sherry FitzGerald, the fact that no mortgage was recorded at the Registry of Deeds suggests that it was purchased outright for cash.
The original house at 22 Ailesbury Road had been home to the Japanese embassy in the late 1990s before it was purchased along with the neighbouring No 24 by McNamara. Having demolished No 22, he retained architect Brian O’Halloran to design a new three-storey house with numerous reception rooms, entrance hall, lift and indoor swimming pool which can be transformed into a dance floor, thanks to the addition of a retractable, transparent glass cover.
Within months of buying Nos, 22–24, Mrs McManus bought Nos 14A and 16A, both of which had also been owned by McNamara, paying a total of €2.7m. While the monies raised from both sales were expected to go towards the repayment of McNamara’s debt to his main creditor, Nama; the agency does in certain cases make allowances for debtors whom it has placed in receivership.
Explaining Nama’s position to the Sunday Independent at the time, a Nama spokesman said: “This is decided on a case-by-case basis but a portion of the sale proceeds may be made available in these situations not least because of the influence of the Family Home Protection legislation in this area, the fact that a debtor’s partner [who may not be a Nama debtor] may be co-owner of the family home, and the likely attitude of the courts to any dispute.”