A COUPLE should have obtained planning permission before they rebuilt a derelict house in an area of outstanding natural beauty in Co Wicklow, a High Court judge has ruled.
While Mr Justice John Edwards refused to give Wicklow County Council an order which would effectively mean the house at Aghfarrell, Brittas, would have to be demolished, he indicated the couple may face substantial legal costs due to the court action. The costs issue will be dealt with later.
Samuel Jessup, an architectural technician, and his wife Fiona Smith bought the cottage for €400,000 in February 2006 and spent €30,000 renovating it as their new home, doing a lot of the work themselves. The cottage was built to serve the adjoining Aghfarrell House. The couple initially argued the cottage was exempt from planning permission as it was a long-standing habitable structure, and the works carried out did not materially affect the external appearance of the old house. They disputed the council’s contention that the old cottage was not habitable. After they started work on it, the council brought enforcement proceedings requiring that the work stop and directing the structure be returned to its pre-development state.
They applied to retain the works, but this was rejected. The council said the development constituted sporadic development in an area of outstanding natural beauty, and was in contravention of the county development plan.
A second planning application was also rejected, and the enforcement proceedings came before the Circuit Court in December 2008 when Judge Terence O’Sullivan refused to grant an order requiring no further work be carried out. The council appealed that decision, and yesterday Mr Justice Edwards ruled the development unauthorised.
The judge said Mr Jessup’s “high-handed and dismissive attitude” towards a council inspector was “greatly to be deprecated”. He was satisfied Mr Jessup genuinely, but mistakenly, believed the works he was carrying out were exempt from planning permission.
The consequences of making an order restoring the cottage to its prior state would mean the existing structure would have to be demolished, with “significant financial repercussions” as well as dislocation and disruption to the family unit “with all the heartache that would entail”, the judge said.
The judge said he must find that the development carried out was not exempt because the couple’s own architect accepted there had been a material change to the character of the house. Were it not for this admission he would have had some difficulty in finding in favour of the council, he said.
In exercising the court’s discretion not to order the effective demolition of the house, the judge said he took account of the couple’s modest means.
The judge noted the council’s concern that refusal of a demolition order could involve setting a precedent, but said should it be publicised the couple had lost the case on its merits and might have to pay legal costs, “this may have the desired deterrent effect”.