A MAN who demolished an old farmhouse in an area of scenic amenity on a west Cork headland and built a new house in its place was accused by a judge of “driving a coach and four” through the Planning Act.
David Galvin was convicted and fined €1,500 for carrying out an unauthorised development at Brow Head peninsula on March 22nd last year in breach of section 151 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
He was also ordered to pay €10,000 in costs and €3,483.25 in expenses to Cork County Council when he appeared before Bandon District Court yesterday.
Mr Galvin had claimed that he had not demolished and rebuilt the original farmhouse but had refurbished it and, as such, it was an exempt development.
However, Judge Gerard Haughton said that having heard two days of evidence from Cork County Council officials, he was satisfied that the council had acted in good faith in bringing the prosecution against Mr Galvin.
He said Mr Galvin had gone all out to get the work done as quickly as possible and “in flagrant violation” of the Planning and Development Act.
“He drove a coach and four through it and I can see little that can be said in mitigation,” the judge remarked.
Judge Haughton said he had heard evidence that a house which was on the site on March 6th, 2007, and deemed habitable under the Planning and Development Act, had been demolished by the defendant. He added the development on the site could not possibly be considered a refurbishment of an existing dwelling.
Earlier, the barrister acting for Cork County Council, Tim O’Sullivan, told the court that Mr Galvin had not complied with an enforcement notice that ordered him to cease work on the site.
Seán Taylor, a planner with the council, said the site was located in an area on the peninsula designated as a “scenic amenity” overlooking Barleycove Bay, an area of special protection.
The court heard Mr Galvin believed the complaint the council received in relation to the site was “vexatious or malicious and had arisen from begrudgery”.
An enforcement notice was sent to the defendant on May 1st, 2007, ordering that he cease construction and demolish any unauthorised development, but this was not complied with.
Defence solicitor Ernest Cantillon told the court that his client had no previous convictions and he said a conviction would have serious implications for Mr Galvin.
He said Mr Galvin had taken advice from experts that had now been found to be wrong and that he would have to pay the price.
However, Judge Haughton pointed out that the defendant was aware he could have sought retention of the old farmhouse in the development but he had not pursued this course of action.
