Palmerston Park (Grianblah)

[publicrealm]

[quote="jimg"]Any update on this? I live just around the corner and as I passed tonight I made the effort of reading the posted planning notice. It's dated the 27th of July 2006 and it looks like an application to do what they've already started doing even though it is in complete breach of the original application]


Jimg,

You may make a submission/observation within 5 weeks of receipt o the application by DCC - must pay fee of €20.00.

I will check with DCC (tomorrow hopefully:) re date of receipt and advise of last date for submission. I think this is one case wher a few objections might focus the planners on the importance of the issue.

I will post details of process tomorrow.

[jimg]

publicrealm, excuse my ignorance regarding the planning process. But what exactly is going on here? They originally applied for permission to demolish the house and build something else but were refused. They then applied for and were granted permission to do some work which would involve a "small amount of demolition". They went ahead and demolished practically the whole house - doing what they originally wanted to do. They did this in a sneaky way - by errecting 10 foot high hoarding around the site hoping nobody would notice. A few people (including yourself) noticed and complained to the council who must have inspected the site and judged that the demolishion did not have permission. So now they're applying for the original permission again? If this is the case, then their actions make a complete mockery of the planning process.

[publicrealm]

If this is the case, then their actions make a complete mockery of the planning process.

Yes, I'm afraid that is the case.

The question is what can the Planning Authority do about it?

Interestingly the argument being advanced by the applicant is that retention of the remaining walls (following the 'small amount of demolition') proved unsafe as they were unstable. In other words his proposal was never buildable.

If this is accepted as an argument then nothing is safe from demolition.

Anyway the Reg. Ref in DCC is 4303/06 and the last date for receipt of submissions is 30th August 06.

[Andrew Duffy]

There is a very relevant case described in the Times today:

Property developer Fergal Gaughran has agreed to reconstruct a €3 million dormer bungalow that he bought in the Mount Merrion area of south Dublin and which was almost completely demolished without planning permission.

Mr Gaughran and his wife, Jane, of Holywell, Kilmacud Road Upper, Dublin, have consented in the Circuit Civil Court to "fully reconstruct the house at No 1, The Rise, Mount Merrion, Dublin, to its condition prior to the commencement of unauthorised demolition works".


Carol O'Farrell, counsel for Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, told Judge Jacqueline Linnane that the Gaughrans had consented to the order to reconstruct the house insofar as is practicable.

Mr Gaughran, managing director of the UK-based Gaughran Homes Ltd, bought the house at an auction in 2005 for a reported €3 million. Last March he was granted permission by An Bord Pleanála to remove a 16sq m extension to the house's living-room at the rear of the property and enlarge the home at the front, side and rear.

In April, the council rejected a separate application to demolish the two-storey dormer dwelling and build a new five-bedroom one in its place.

In their decision they said the old structure was "in harmony" with its surroundings and added that "its demolition and replacement would neither protect nor improve the residential amenities of the area".

Ms O'Farrell told the court that when council officials inspected the house on June 22nd they found it had been substantially demolished, leaving only one small corner section.

She told the judge that the Gaughrans had agreed to fully reconstruct the house to its condition prior to the demolition works save as to the extent of the modifications and alterations for which planning permission was granted.

© The Irish Times

[phil]

Whilst I am slightly sceptical of the idea of 'rebuilds' I am glad to see this happen, as it shows that this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated. What do you think the process involved was? Did the council bring them to court? It seems to be a very similar situation to Grianblah, doesn't it?

[Ryano]

More on this in today's Irish Times: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2006/0811/1154691577021.html

A builder who paid more than €7 million for a detached 1920s house in Palmerston Park and subsequently demolished most of it has sought planning permission from Dublin City Council to build a new house on the site.

The planning application was lodged by Felix Whelan, who owns Garland Homes, three weeks after he was served with an enforcement order by the council halting demolition work on the original house because it was in breach of an earlier permission.

According to a spokesman for the council, Mr Whelan had permission to build a large extension to the side and rear of the house on a half-acre site at the corner of Palmerston Park and Orchard Road.

This would have involved partial demolition of the house.

However, after local residents complained about the extent of the demolition work, planning enforcement officer Barry White inspected the site and found that only part of the ground-floor front wall was still standing.

[Paul Clerkin]

Mr Whelan said the new house, designed by McCrossan O'Rourke Manning Architects, would be "in character" with the original house, Grianblah, which was built by Manning Robertson, a distinguished architect and town planner in Dublin during the 1920s and 1930s.

When it was put up for auction by Lisney estate agents in March 2005, the guide price was €3 million. With a floor area of 244 sq m (2,626 sq ft), the Arts and Crafts-style house was described as having a rambling layout with quirky interior details and secluded gardens.

Interesting.... cannot say I'm impressed by McCrossan O'Rourke - they must have known he didnt have permission to pull the whole thing down

there should be a mechanism that an architects registration board can smack them over the knuckles for this

similar to a rule in english football - this shoud qualify as bringing architecture practition into disrepute

[altotude]

jimg, this information page sets it out easily enough - there's a fee, but basically you just send in a letter.

http://oasis.gov.ie/housing/planning_permission/commenting_on_planning_application.html

By way of update, the story was covered in the Irish Times on Friday (page 3) and in the current issue of the Phoneix Magazine. (I would link, but both are subscription.)

I'd be interested to hear from others on Archiseek as to what might happen now - would the planners adopt a 'spilt milk' approach and decide to allow the permission, or would they impose a fine or something else? Don't remember the details, but at the end of the IT article (by Frank MacDonald) they refer to an unrelated deveopment where the planners have ordered reconstruction.

[a boyle]

why would someone want to go to the effort to demolish such a nice house ?

they were hardly going to replace it with something better...

[Jaypers]

Such Pessimism a Boyle... oh and at such a young age too!

This is supposed to be an architectural forum. Surely we all have enough confidence in McCrossan O'Rourke architects that it would be replaced by an even better piece of architecture.

I live in the area and I walk past this plot a few times a week. Personally I thought that the original house was already bastardised by the 1950 extensions and slates.

Pity you guys objected, I was looking forward to seeing what they'd build there!

Is that wrong????

[publicrealm]

Pity you guys objected, I was looking forward to seeing what they'd build there!

Is that wrong????

It is always refreshing to see such a balanced and trusting post. Well done Jaypers.

Sadly the (most recent) application has been invalidated and you may have to wait a little while to see the new house.

[Frank Taylor]

I also see no reason why a new house would not be an improvement on what went before. The original building was an insipid, conservative structure. Looked like something a banker would live in. Reminiscent of the ugly mansions of Hampstead. I don't agree with the comment that it was 'Arts and Craftsy, Lutyens-ey, with a suspicion of Frank Lloyd Wright'. Of course the owner had no right to violate planning procedures.

[phil]

Frank, I am not really sure of where you are seeing that resemblance between the building that has just been knocked the larger houses of Hampstead. Maybe there is some sort of resemblance between it and some of the Garden Suburb houses, but I don't think it is anything like any of the larger houses in that area.

[Frank Taylor]

Yes, maybe it is more Hampstead Garden Suburb than Hampstead (I'm never quite sure where I am when I drive through North London). Here's a web page with some photos from a street in HGS
http://www.hgs.org.uk/mystreet/turner%20close/index.html
I find them depressing. Middle England awful suburbia with money. They just seem so featureless and unhappy with their blank brick walls and empty surrounding lawns. No love.

[phil]

Whilst I agree with you about the images you posted, I still don't see the resemblance bar brick colouring and some stylistic commonalities. The Parmerston Park house was far more understated than any of those buildings.

[altotude]

Any update on this?

DCC Planning search says decision not yet made - should be by now though should it not?

[publicrealm]

DCC Decision is due tomorrow.

Interesting that they have apparently chosen not to invalidate (on the grounds that the Application effectively 'pockets' the gain made by virtue of the unauthorised development on site (i.e. the demolition)).

Could set an interesting legal precedent - with potential implications for Conservation Areas - but they are possible constrained by their earlier decision to sanction the demolition shown in the drawings - which did not accord with the public notices.

I believe they are wrong here - any Jesuits out there who would like to get to grips with this issue?:D

[publicrealm]

DCC has decided to grant permission.

Haven't seen the grant so I don't know if any conditions are attached - in any event I don't suppose that the Applicant will worry too much about complying with them - or that DCC will bother too much either.

An interesting precedent for DCC Conservation Areas?

[ctesiphon]

Interesting that they have apparently chosen not to invalidate (on the grounds that the Application effectively 'pockets' the gain made by virtue of the unauthorised development on site (i.e. the demolition)).

Could set an interesting legal precedent - with potential implications for Conservation Areas - but they are possible constrained by their earlier decision to sanction the demolition shown in the drawings - which did not accord with the public notices.

Could you elaborate a bit, publicrealm?

Not sure I follow what you mean by 'pocket' re the invalidation, or what you think the implications for Cons Areas might be.

Once I understand the issues more clearly, I'll gladly get all Jesuitical on this one.

Thanks.

[publicrealm]

Could you elaborate a bit, publicrealm?
Once I understand the issues more clearly, I'll gladly get all Jesuitical on this one.

Thanks.

Very well my child.

Issue 1: DCC grant permission which allows works (in particular demolition) well in excess of those described in the public notices (which state 'a small amount of demolition is required'). Question 1 - is this a valid permission? (Standard Condition 1 states "for the avoidance of doubt, this permission shall not be construed as approving any development shown on the plans, particulars and specifications, the nature and extent of which has not been adequately stated in the statutory public notices")

Issue 2: Notwithstanding the validity of the permission the applicant then exceeded the amount of demolition permitted by demolishing most of the structure, including most of the areas he had undertaken to retain. This development was unauthorised and DCC served enforcement notice. The Applicant's response was to apply for permission for the demolition of the remainder of the "partially demolished" structure, and to build the new house.

An application to demolish the remainder of the structure would have been in order - but in effect the application incorporated the unauthorised works (insofar as the demolition of the remainder was to be followed by the construction of the house- over the unauthorised works) without regard to the fact that they were unauthorised. S32(b) of the Act explicitly requires that permission for unauthorised development must be the subject of an application for retention (rather than an application for permission), with the appropriate (retention) application fee being paid. In other words, DCC has now granted permission for development which incorporates unauthorised development and which is the subject of enforcement action by DCC, and the applicant has made no attempt to regularise the situation. Question 2 - is the permission valid - insofar as it cannot be completed without unauthorised development.

I think a recitation of the Solemn Mysteries is called for myself.

[altotude]

This whole saga is so depressing ... on the planning level and the client level.

I've been reading the objections and am looking forward to reading DCC's grounds for granting permission.

[altotude]

Anyone know what's going on with Grianblah? Permission was granted ages ago and, despite the owner's rush to get started the first time, nothing's happened. Still boarded up, graffitied. Horrible eyesore on a beautiful park.

[publicrealm]

Anyone know what's going on with Grianblah? Permission was granted ages ago and, despite the owner's rush to get started the first time, nothing's happened. Still boarded up, graffitied. Horrible eyesore on a beautiful park.

Altotude

The bizarre DCC decision was appealed by a neighbour - decision due in late April. Quite a good appeal imho.

http://www.pleanala.ie/data1/searchdetails.asp?id=7541844&caseno=220979

[phil]

The decision on this is to be made tomorrow.

[altotude]

The page linked above says the decision has been made but won't be published before 5 June (today). Anyone have word yet of what happened?