Illegal Demolition in Dublin 8!

Gavin "shels"

Anyone familiar with the The Tenters area of Dublin 8 would have noticed a missing house... 18 O'Donovan Road. This was illegally demolished following a rejection of the request in his Planning Permission (PP link below), the site was cleared of all materials extremely quick (presumably so not be forced to rebuild).

http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=3304/17&backURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=4039869%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%20%3E%20%3Ca%20href=%27wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=4738161%26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=APNID:DESC%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=4039869%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%27%3ESearch%20Results%3C/a%3E

The manner of the bully tactics by this property owner is a disgrace and it should be used as a marker of what should not happen anywhere else in Dublin!! He'll be slapped with a €5,000 fine... probably get to build the monstrosity of a house he had planned and continue to put the neighbours through a living nightmare.

Anyone around this Saturday 22nd December at 12pm - it would be great if people could come out and support the neighbours of what was 18 O'Donovan Road.

abcabc123123

The PP linked is an approved demolition of an existing extension...?

Pelvis

I have no idea what's happening.

Odelay

Don’t get it

Demolish house
????
Profit



What were they trying to achieve?

Gavin "shels"

abcabc123123 wrote: »

The PP linked is an approved demolition of an existing extension...?

But not the whole house....

Gavin "shels"

Odelay wrote: »

Don’t get it

Demolish house
????
Profit



What were they trying to achieve?

Given the house was in bad nick and his ambitious plans.... the easy option was to demolish the house so he'd have a greenfield site essentially to build what he wanted instead of keeping in line with all the houses in the locality.

Doop

abcabc123123 wrote: »

The PP linked is an approved demolition of an existing extension...?

Demolition of an extension but not demolition of the entire house is the point I guess!

Scandalous... clearing the site has nothing to do with not having to rebuild as you couldnt use the same materials anyway, you are just forced to build a replica really.

wakka12

He will be forced to reconstruct a house that looks like the one he demolished, or hell be forced to demolish the new house he builds as he will never be given retention permission for it and will keep getting notices and warnings until its forcibly demolished

Hes stupid and shouldnt have done it and he will end up losing a lot of money in the long run, and he deserves it, incredibly thoughtless and rude

Gavin "shels"

Doop wrote: »

Scandalous... clearing the site has nothing to do with not having to rebuild as you couldnt use the same materials anyway, you are just forced to build a replica really.

Pity Dublin City Council Enforcement Department don't seem to have pushed for this as of yet - hopefully with the pressure being put on by Councillors to DCC will result in this.

Gavin "shels"

wakka12 wrote: »

He will be forced to reconstruct a house that looks like the one he demolished, or hell be forced to demolish the new house he builds as he will never be given retention permission for it and will keep getting notices and warnings until its forcibly demolished

Hes stupid and shouldnt have done it and he will end up losing a lot of money in the long run, and he deserves it, incredibly thoughtless and rude

The fear around here is - he'll get to build his plans!

I haven't looked into them in detail but was at a meeting last Monday with the neighbours of what was 18 and they're concerned he'll get away with it - DCC have done the bare minimum to enforce anything it seems.

The homeowner in 19 had to push for some sort of external protection for her internal wall which is now external due to the demolition.... The fencing around the property has fallen twice in the weather damaging two cars... the list of crap is endless!

abcabc123123

Doop wrote: »

Demolition of an extension but not demolition of the entire house is the point I guess!

Scandalous... clearing the site has nothing to do with not having to rebuild as you couldnt use the same materials anyway, you are just forced to build a replica really.

Indeed, it just seems weird is all. Why go for planning at all?

I hope he gets done good and proper for this but I'd be doubtful. I'm not sure DCC have either the resources or the will to go after guys like this.

seamus

Chances are his aim is that although the demolition is illegal, it's cheaper for him to rebuild to his plans than it was to try and modify the existing house.

And from the council and his neighbours' perspective, there is no difference in the end-product. So they'd have a tough time refusing retention since the new property matches the previously approved drawings.

Enforcement at this point is to tell him to rebuild. That's what he's going to do.

It's a glaring oversight in planning, tbh. If you approve substantial modifications to any property, then you may as well let them demolish and start again.

Doop

Keep pressure on local councillors and put calls into DCC planning section.

If I was that neighbor I'd be getting a full Building Survey done, gaurentee theres damage done to the adjoining house.

They went for planning so they can build their 2 storey extension. Otherwise theyd be told to take it down, you cant undo the demolition of a house though.

AndrewJRenko

Not just a problem in Dublin - this case is getting lots of attention in SF
https://www.sfgate.com/living/article/Man-who-demolished-landmark-house-ordered-to-13469247.php

abcabc123123

seamus wrote: »

Chances are his aim is that although the demolition is illegal, it's cheaper for him to rebuild to his plans than it was to try and modify the existing house.

And from the council and his neighbours' perspective, there is no difference in the end-product. So they'd have a tough time refusing retention since the new property matches the previously approved drawings.

Enforcement at this point is to tell him to rebuild. That's what he's going to do.

It's a glaring oversight in planning, tbh. If you approve substantial modifications to any property, then you may as well let them demolish and start again.

I see what you mean. I didn't look at the drawings. I'm surprised they granted such dramatic changes to the original house. It's a cool design but I feel for the neighbour.

abcabc123123

https://extra.ie/2018/09/30/news/real-life/dublin-house-demoloiton-neighbour-south-circular-road

Gavin "shels"

Doop wrote: »

Keep pressure on local councillors and put calls into DCC planning section.

Pat Dunne, Rebecca Moynihan, Criona Ni Dhalaigh, Michael Pidgeon & Joan Collins were all a local meeting last Monday with the neighbours - Pat & Rebecca are hot on this case and said it will be brought up again this week in DCC.

PeterBee

So ... does this mean an ethically challenged developer/builder could buy a house, demolish it, rebuild, grab as large a profit as the skewed market will bear and run roughshod over the planning department and the associated laws. Why are the legitimate interests of the community not being assertively protected? Surely the buck stops with someone?
Is it possible that this is a first foray by greedy interests that will soon become the norm?
Should I be concerned that one of my neighbor’s houses will disappear overnight and the unwanted and barely regulated rebuild distort the nice visage and lines of my street?
I hope this absurdity can be remedied ... preferably at the exclusive expense of the person(s) who initiated the gamble.
Please turn out for the Requiem and make a strong show of unity and disapproval.
Greed should never be tolerated, especially if it involves bullying.
Developers cant be allowed to run rampant especially if it involves a sudden and unexpected demolition that leaves the remaining portion of the conjoined houses exposed to weather damage.
Its hard to believe this has happened and no solid action appears to have been taken.

wakka12

The issue will be rectified, otherwise as you say the above situation would regularly occur but it doesnt, a cowboy developer will not have the last say on this issue, even if it takes the council a while I guarantee you the developer will be the one who loses out in this

Gavin "shels"

wakka12 wrote: »

The issue will be rectified, otherwise as you say the above situation would regularly occur but it doesnt, a cowboy developer will not have the last say on this issue, even if it takes the council a while I guarantee you the developer will be the one who loses out in this

I suppose that's part of the problem... a while. Una's now interior wall is exposed to the elements as an exterior and was only covered with some crap wood/sheeting after she pushed and pushed for it. She's had tiles come off her roof, etc... It's an extremely dangerous scenario Brian Morrow has left the neighbours in.

PeterBee

abcabc123123 wrote: »

Indeed, it just seems weird is all. Why go for planning at all?

I hope he gets done good and proper for this but I'd be doubtful. I'm not sure DCC have either the resources or the will to go after guys like this.

Perhaps a Fundit could be be set up to get some legal muscle involved. Lots of small contributons could really add up ?

Gavin "shels"

Building work has begun on what looks like external walls on the site.... will be interesting to see what he does and if it's done correctly (liaising with 19 O'Donovan Rds engineer to have the houses connected correctly as before).

gctest50

Just as well he dropped it - there was no firewall between the two attics

Nermal

For a breach this serious DCC should be allowed to expropriate the site.

Dial Hard

wakka12 wrote: »

He will be forced to reconstruct a house that looks like the one he demolished, or hell be forced to demolish the new house he builds as he will never be given retention permission for it and will keep getting notices and warnings until its forcibly demolished

Hes stupid and shouldnt have done it and he will end up losing a lot of money in the long run, and he deserves it, incredibly thoughtless and rude

I'll be amazed if that happens. Presentation Convent in Terenure, which was a listed building, was illegally demolished back in 2007 or thereabouts by the developer who bought the site. He was initially ordered to reinstate/replicate the building, refused and appealed the decision and was eventually slapped with a fine of something absolutely farcical like €1,500, for a site on which he probably made millions.

seamus

Nermal wrote: »

For a breach this serious DCC should be allowed to expropriate the site.

By the time the machinations of the planning department get back from Christmas and get around to deciding whether it's a breach and just how serious the breach is, the house will be nearly built.

dreamers75

Oh he worked for BAM, makes sense now.

LollipopJimmy

Something similar happened on the Naas Road

http://www.echo.ie/news/article/motion-passed-condemning-illegal-development-naas-road

Dublin 8 and 12 is having every little spot being built on at the moment and it happened behind my house also, works for a house in a garden started without PP and despite huge local objection it received planning after the works started.

gctest50

Dial Hard wrote: »

I'll be amazed if that happens. Presentation Convent in Terenure, which was a listed building, was illegally demolished back in 2007 or thereabouts by the developer who bought the site. He was initially ordered to reinstate/replicate the building, refused and appealed the decision and was eventually slapped with a fine of something absolutely farcical like €1,500, for a site on which he probably made millions.

This is what was put up i think


https://m.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/terenure-gate-terenure-road-west-terenure-dublin-6/3818601



huge improvement compared to this old yoke :





but Dublin can be heaven,
with the rev-counter at 11 :

VonLuck

Some might recall Archer's Garage on Sandwith Street where the illegal demolition of the building resulted in its reconstruction exactly as it was: https://comeheretome.com/2017/11/19/archers-garage-sandwith-street/

Gavin "shels"

seamus wrote: »

By the time the machinations of the planning department get back from Christmas and get around to deciding whether it's a breach and just how serious the breach is, the house will be nearly built.

Bingo - he has until the 28th January for the house to be rebuilt afaik, god knows what sort of crap we'll see!

wakka12

VonLuck wrote: »

Some might recall Archer's Garage on Sandwith Street where the illegal demolition of the building resulted in its reconstruction exactly as it was: https://comeheretome.com/2017/11/19/archers-garage-sandwith-street/

Cant believe somebody had the nerve to demolish such a cool building!

wally79

VonLuck wrote: »

Some might recall Archer's Garage on Sandwith Street where the illegal demolition of the building resulted in its reconstruction exactly as it was: https://comeheretome.com/2017/11/19/archers-garage-sandwith-street/

Walk past it every day. It is my favourite building. Slightly disappointed to hear it’s a replica

wakka12

Apparently it wasnt rebuilt to as high a standard as the original as well

Esel

I think a demolition plan for the building that became the Porterhouse in Phibsborough was refused at the time. It's now called The Whitworth afaik.

De Bhál

still off the original topic

https://www.thejournal.ie/kbc-dublin-fire-4409495-Dec2018/

wally79

wally79 wrote: »

Walk past it every day. It is my favourite building. Slightly disappointed to hear it’s a replica

Jaysus lads. I wasn't that disappointed

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/fire-damages-kbc-bank-building-in-dublin-city-centre-1.3739223

L1011

There's a very good chapter in the newly published "More Than Concrete Blocks Volume 2" (a city council 20th century architecture series) on Archers and the rebuild, including some compromises that had to be made for materials availability and building standards.

FreudianSlippers

I'm still none-the-wiser what this thread is about?!

expectationlost

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/dozens-protest-after-unauthorised-demolition-leaves-woman-s-home-exposed-1.3740802 strange houses with only one small window at the front

Gavin "shels"

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm still none-the-wiser what this thread is about?!

Maybe have a read of the thread and the Irish Times article posted below you...

Gavin "shels"

expectationlost wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/dozens-protest-after-unauthorised-demolition-leaves-woman-s-home-exposed-1.3740802 strange houses with only one small window at the front

A lot of the houses around here would be like that - Madden Rd, O'Curry Rd, O'Donovan, few of the other roads also.

expectationlost

Gavin shels wrote: »

A lot of the houses around here would be like that - Madden Rd, O'Curry Rd, O'Donovan, few of the other roads also.

built on the cheap?

L1011

Dublin Corporation and/or public utility society construction, built to a very specific price point

Gumbo

seamus wrote: »

By the time the machinations of the planning department get back from Christmas and get around to deciding whether it's a breach and just how serious the breach is, the house will be nearly built.

Warning letter would have been issued within 24 hours of the complaint been received.

The planning department have nothing got to do with this type of unauthorised works. It’s the Planning enforcement Section and think you’ll find they are very efficient, sometimes too efficient as everything has to be done to the letter of the law as if it ever goes to court then DCC will loose on a breach of proceedure.

Either way, they have no power to stop the works, the letter would have went and the building owner legally has 28 days to respond and allow the inspector into the site.

If you don’t like this, Libby your TD/councillor to change the law.

JupiterKid

In fairness, most local authorities now come down pretty hard on those who demolish buildings without permission. But not always - remember the despicable church demolition on Jones Road in Dublin during the so called Celtic Tiger?

In the 1960s, 70s and 80s many beautiful historic buildings were demolished overnight - literallly - with impunity and those responsible usually got away scot free. Like beautiful Georgian Frascati House in Blackrock in 1981. There was a real culture of corruption and an immature cultural antipathy to Georgian, Regency and Victorian era buildings back then.

The real turning point came in 1989 when a developer demolished the historic Drogheda Grammar School. He was forced to rebuild it brick by brick or face a prison sentence. It featured big in the media at the time.

But abuses still continue. The beautiful 19th century Arnott House in Ashtown by the old Phoenix Park racecourse was allowed fall into serious disrepair and eventually razed to the ground. That was criminal.

Sacksian

Stonevilla in Phibsborough is a listed building and former stately home that was just left to rot. I'm pretty sure its neglect was illegal. Online photos of it from 8 years ago show the scale of the deterioration.

Markcheese

Whats the story with neglect of a listed building (legally),
Always thought the way to stop this would be to slap the councils costs for site visits, engineers, surveys solicitors etc onto the property owner.. So yeah the fine ends up a slap on the wrist, but the charges and fees should be eye-watering...
And if its a listed building, the opw should be the ones rebuilding, restoring or making safe, at the expense of the developer, (or beneficial owner).

JupiterKid

Sacksian wrote: »

Stonevilla in Phibsborough is a listed building and former stately home that was just left to rot. I'm pretty sure its neglect was illegal. Online photos of it from 8 years ago show the scale of the deterioration.

Is it still standing? There should be a legal obligation on the owner of the property to maintain the structure as best they can, and if unable to do so, it should be CPOd by the local authority.

Perhaps new legislation, such as an amendment to the 2000 Planning and Development Act, is needed here.

dudara

expectationlost wrote: »

built on the cheap?

Built around 1918 - 1922 or so in order to provide social housing in inner city Dublin. Funding was originally approved in 1913 (in response to the earlier tenement collapse) but got diverted in 1916 to rebuild the City Centre. Very interesting little piece of history in that area.

We’ve actually just bought in this general area, and I was gobsmacked when I saw the house disappear. I really feel for the neighbour, her house must be seriously damaged.

Gaspode

Took my mother up to see this the other day - she's from O'Donovan road originally and knew the previous owners of No. 18 (which was rent office for a while i believe). Hope this gets resolved properly or a lot of the old houses may suffer the same fate. I'm all for progress but this sort of crap is not progress.