A former BBC and ITV employee has been ordered to pay costs in a Donegal court over an unauthorised development in Portnoo.
After being refused retention planning permission over the development at Narin, Portnoo, Stephen Myles was issued with an enforcement notice by Donegal County Council in 2021 – two years after planning permission was refused.
A solicitor representing Myles told Glenties District Court that he acted on the advice of an architect.
Myles, who was charged with breaches of the Planning Development Act, added a log cabin to a site on which a modest dwelling and had planned to connect the two structures.
However, Myles was charged with a failure to comply with an enforcement notice that was issued on April 27, 2021. Donegal County Council brought proceedings against Myles under section 154 (8) and section 156 of the Planning Development Act.
Myles was represented by solicitor Mr Gordon Curley, who told the court that his client worked abroad for media outlets such as BBC and ITV before deciding to take early retirement.
Mr Curley said that Myles had savings of around €100,000 when he came to Portnoo. Myles and his wife came to Portnoo to retire ‘and fell in love with the area’.
The house they were in was ‘not sufficient’ and Myles spent approximately €60,000 on a log cabin, Mr Curley told the court. Mr Curley told Judge Éiteáin Cunningham that Myles engaged the services of an architect who told his client that the log cabin was constructed under the grant site and didn’t need planning.
The court heard that Myles initiated High Court proceedings for negligence, but decided not to pursue the.
“He is physically and emotionally broken over the whole affair,” Mr Curley said. “He has spent €80-90,000 of his life savings that he intended to retire on.
“In the long run, he has already paid a heavy price and if costs are added it would add to the whole saga.”
He said Myles and his family have since relocated to Greece, where his wife hails from, ‘as this has just not been a happy experience’.
Mr Kevin McElhinney, solicitor for Donegal County Council, said that ‘multiple applications’ were made for retention. “I believe it was made very clear that retention wouldn’t have been possible,” Mr McElhinney said. “While there is every sympathy in terms of the difficulties, it does remain an unauthorised development.”
The cabin has since been removed, Mr McElhinney said, but said that a treatment plant, while decommissioned, remains on the site.
Mr McElhinney sought the awarding of costs on behalf of the Council. “If there are no costs awarded, it is left to the taxpayer, which is the Local Authority’s concern,” he said.
Judge Cunningham said it seemed as if Myles and his wife ‘at all stages acted in good faith and acted on advice, albeit the wrong advice’.
Judge Cunningham awarded €500 plus VAT by way of a contribution to costs. Myles was given six months to discharge the costs.
Mr McElhinney told the court that a plea was tendered in January 2023 and further time was sought to deal with the structure.
Myles had sought retention permission for ancillary living accommodation adjacent to existing dwelling house, septic tank and percolation area and permission for the proposed link to the existing dwelling to include a new front entrance to the house and all associated site works,
Donegal County Council refused permission in August 2019 and Myles subsequently lodged an appeal to An Bord Pleanála.
The appeal outlined that there was a requirement for additional space to accommodate visiting family members a 60 square metre house ‘which is now a permanent place of residence’ and said the design was ‘of small scale and low profile’.
An inspector visited the site in November 2019 to carry out an assessment.
The inspector agreed with notes made by the appellant regarding the high density of housing in the area, but said that the merits of the case had to be considered and balanced with the applicant’s needs.
“In this regard it is appropriate to question the purpose of the development and in particular the need for two separate kitchen dining areas,” the inspector wrote in recommending that the Board uphold the decision of the Council. “This is a large extension relative to the existing house.
“In summary, I consider that there is merit in the conclusion of the planning authority that the development may be described as haphazard and would by reason of the two separate units appear time to constitute over development of the site.”
An Bord Pleanála refused permission, stating that the proposed development – which was in an area ‘designated as an Especially High Scenic Amenity Area’ – would ‘constitute overdevelopment of the site’.