Dublin Gay Bar Street 66 Retains Late-Night Dance License Amid Resident Complaints

A popular Dublin gay bar, Street 66 on Parliament Street, has successfully retained its late-night dance licences, overcoming objections from a resident living in the apartment directly above the venue.

Tommy Bergin, the resident, had lodged a complaint, describing the noise from the bar as “bonkers” and stating it prevented him from sleeping before 3 am on Friday and Saturday nights, as well as on Sunday nights of bank holiday weekends. He highlighted that the bar now holds a late-night licence for 130 days annually.

However, Dublin District Court judge Máire Conneely dismissed Mr. Bergin’s objection, emphasizing the importance of the bar’s location within the city centre. The judge noted that it is indeed “not reasonable” to reside in a city centre apartment,surrounded by numerous bars and late-night establishments,and expect music to be inaudible.

Mr. bergin, who moved into the apartment in 2019, had made a similar objection the previous year. He claimed that mitigation measures implemented after last year’s hearing, which resulted in an order for a 10-decibel reduction in music levels, had minimal impact on the noise issue.

During the proceedings, bar owner Siobhán Conmy testified emotionally, revealing that she had invested €58,000 in noise mitigation measures. “I have always offered to do anything that people have asked. My heart is really in it,” she stated, adding that the late-night licence contributes 30 per cent of her business and she feared losing it.

An acoustics expert, Diarmuid Keaney, confirmed the installation of two noise limiters in compliance with the previous court order, asserting that they had not been tampered with.

Judge Conneely also pointed out that while the management company indicated other residents within the building had complained, none had come forward to provide evidence. The court noted the absence of specific Irish or EU standards for noise breaches, with experts holding differing opinions on the matter.

The judge considered the premises’ long-standing history as a late-night bar a “relevant matter that the courts must take into consideration.” She also found it “strange” that mr. Bergin’s complaint had persisted for three years without direct engagement from him.