€1,000 fine for developer who illegally demolished convent
- This topic has 13 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
From the Times
€1,000 fine for developer who illegally demolished convent
A DEVELOPER who illegally demolished a 19th-century convent in south Dublin has been fined €1,000 at Dublin District Court.Kimpton Vale Ltd based at College Fort, Carpenterstown, Dublin, was taken to court by Dublin City Council following the demolition of the Presentation Convent at Terenure Road West on November 4th, 2006.
The convent was demolished at a time when the council was considering plans to make it a protected structure.
At a council meeting the previous month, councillors passed a motion that the process of having the convent added to the list of protected structures be initiated.
The proceedings were taken under the 2000 Planning and Development Act, which states: “Any person who, without lawful authority, causes damage to a protected structure or a proposed protected structure shall be guilty of an offence.”
Eamon Higgins, a planning enforcement officer with the council, told the court that he had gone to investigate a complaint that the convent was being demolished.
He served notice twice on the company to reinstate the building, which it could not do following the demolition.
The company pleaded guilty, though a charge against its principal Laurence Keegan was struck out.
A solicitor for the development company said his client had been under the impression that an exemption from permission applied in this case.
Judge David McHugh described the convent as a “very fine building”. He imposed the fine and also ordered the company to pay costs of €3,009.25.
Kimpton Vale is now likely to apply for planning permission on the site.
Oooh a grand – that’ll have developers quaking in their boots
-
For Gods sake. €1000. That’s absolutely pathethic. Why don’t powers exist to penalise these scumbags properly – i.e massive fines or denial of future permissions. So depressing.
-
Wow!
The nuns must have prayed for him.There was an interesting article recently in the Guardian drawing attention to the strange differences in fines for wrong doing, where apparently very serious offences were less harshly dealt with than putting out a wheelie bin too early for collection.
-
The developer should be given the option of having the site confiscated by the state or paying a hefty fine and being forced to restore the site to it’s original condition.
This is a very serious offence and should be treated as such.
€1,000? You must be joking
-
Buttons. Worse than meaningless. Absolutely pointless. This will incentivise illegal demolitions, I reckon.
Why the blazes did the City Council’s law department take this to the district court, rather than the circuit court?
The judge must have been baffled as to why such a major matter was referred to the lowest of courts – and in fairness €1000 was probably the maximum sanction that could be imposed in the district court.
This is only the latest in cock-ups by DCC’s legal dept IMO… Correct me if I am wrong, but what reason do we have to have confidence in the city’s law department;
1.The failed CPO on Dartmouth Square – victory to an antisocial ogre who’s other legal history to date has included being banged up last year by Brit Police after he was harassing them with his claims about “the real Yorkshire Ripper”! Clearly a finely-balanced eagle-eyed legal mind at work there :rolleyes:
2.The 10 year long debacle regarding the CPO of no 3 and 14 Henrietta Street – the oldest and finest Georgian houses in the city still nowhere near resolution – and have a look for yourselves, dangerous possibly structural cracks have now emerged from above the windows.
3. The shenanigans regarding the Carlton saga – with an en-camera session resulting from that shifty deal… see https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=65484&postcount=2542
These are only three instances that come quickly to mind… What the blazes is going on? 😡
We might as well put up a massive ad over the city – a billboard would be the most appropriate:
“WORLDS MOST RUTHLESS DEVELOPERS, WELCOME TO DUBLIN – WE WILL NOT PENALIZE IF AND WHERE YOU WRECK OUR ENVIRONMENT OR DESTROY HERITAGE FABRIC”.
And if your a certain advertising company with a record of consistent planning breaches – we might even award you with a hush-hush sweetheart deal.
What the blazes is going in DCC’s legal dept – with the exception of Barcode being pushed for closure, notably by residents/ public – is there even one case where one can have any faith in this unit?
I am open to correction – and would welcome it if I am wrong… But I don’t think I am 🙁
-
well it wasnt’ a protected structure so.
-
what a pack of Donkeys. way to set and example to greedy developers in Dublin
-
The original story three posts down on this page:
https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=420&page=8
€12.7m maximum fine indeed.
-
“The convent was demolished at a time when the council was considering plans to make it a protected structure.”
So what exactly did the developer do wrong legally if the structure wasn’t protected?
“Any person who, without lawful authority, causes damage to a protected structure or a proposed protected structure shall be guilty of an offence.”
Does this come into play once the status of the building is being discussed? -
“proposed protected structure”? that’s what it was.
-
mp: so, that’s all right then? Anyway, the fact that this low-life has demolished an historic building gives him no rights whatsoever in planning terms for any new development. He still has to get planning permission; if you were the planners would you hurry along his application? Presumably the site is still zoned for convent/educational use.
-
what?
i was just seeking some clarification as someone who is not familiar with the legislation. thanks anyway! -
@mp wrote:
“The convent was demolished at a time when the council was considering plans to make it a protected structure.”
So what exactly did the developer do wrong legally if the structure wasn’t protected?
“Any person who, without lawful authority, causes damage to a protected structure or a proposed protected structure shall be guilty of an offence.”
Does this come into play once the status of the building is being discussed?A Proposed Protected Structure is treated as a Protected Structure for the purposes of the legislation, until a decision is made on its inclusion in the RPS, i.e. it has the same level of protection as a Protected Structure.
In theory.
Also, even if the demolished part of the building wasn’t a PS, if it abuts a PS its demolition requires planning permission.
The thing that really gets my goat in this case is this: “A solicitor for the development company said his client had been under the impression that an exemption from permission applied in this case.”
In no area of law can ignorance of the law be a defence- the dogs in the street know that. I fail to understand why this case is different. Surely that solicitor should be reprimanded for proffering that as a defence? Anyone know who it was?
-
Thanks! 🙂
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
