Michael McDowell's holiday home planning problems began when his own project management team told Roscommon County Council that they had not followed planning terms to the letter of the law.
Jennings O'Donovan & Partners wrote to the council on June 21st and the letter, from Ms Elaine Sweeney, said they had burrowed over seven feet deeper into the site than they were entitled to under the terms of the permission.
Because the job was not completed by August 2004 - the date when planning permission expired - the file on the luxury holiday home was re-opened by their application for an extension.
The McDowells wanted a three-month extension and promised the work would be completed by the end of November.
However, council planners refused their application due to the way in which the site had been excavated much deeper than originally planned, and also because they were not happy with the exterior finish on the building.
The original plans make a virtue of the fact that the site was chosen to maximize "solar orientation" and "views of the lake". The house itself slopes gently towards the shore.
It is three miles off the main Roosky-Strokestown road, and the nearest neighbours are 200 yards away. This could change, though, as a number of sites are for sale on the road, including two sites with planning permission beside the McDowell home.
Locals say sites fetch about €150,000 on this stretch of roadway.
Ms Sweeney's letter of June 21st stated: "A contour survey was taken of the site and it indicates that the site is steeper than what was shown on the planning drawings.
"Therefore, we have taken the finished floor level (which is 8.4m above the adjoining road level) to correspond to the ground floor rather than the basement floor.
"This results in the house being more cut into the slope and requiring less fill than as originally indicated."
Four months later, on October 5th, the council planners turned down the request for an extension. The problems with the way the house was being constructed was considered by planning officials, and director of services Mr John Cunningham outlined in an internal memorandum:
"The developers in this instance are by their own admission (letter June 6th, 2004) constructing a dwelling which is significantly different (2.2m lower) than that for which permission was granted. The question of extension to the dwelling of the permission therefore does not arise as the dwelling under construction does not have the benefit of planning permission."
The decision was communicated to Ms Sweeney, representing the McDowells, by letter on October 5th.
"Please advise the client that an application for retention of the dwelling under construction should be submitted to this office for attention," wrote Ms Catherine Finlay, administrative officer in the planning enforcement section of Roscommon County Council.
The developers Griffner Coillte and Jennings O'Donovan said in a statement that the finished floor levels were lowered from the level specified in the original permission in order to be less obtrusive on the site and ensure compliance by resolving clear ambiguities on the original drawings.
The statement said that Jennings O'Donovan, a Co Sligo engineering firm, notified the council of this change in June 2004 and provided new drawings and invited the council to respond if there was an issue.
Mr Peter Sullivan, the head of Griffner-Coillte, said the developers believed the council would not have a difficulty with such a change because the lowering of height made the house less obtrusive.
The difficulty was discovered only when the finished flooring level was examined by the engineers when it was installed, he said.
Mr Sullivan said his firm was applying a "render" finish to the building as specified in the planning permission.
"It was never the intention of Griffner Coillte to apply any other finish and no indication of any other finish was ever provided to the council."