Jyväskylä orders removal of two unpermitted holiday cabins

Jyväskylä’s building and environmental committee has ordered two unpermitted holiday cabins to be demolished and set a deadline of the end of January for changes to four other buildings on a lakeside property, Yle reports.

The property in Vesanka covers about 15 hectares and has six residential buildings. The city says only one complies with permits and local planning rules. The owner rents out cabins for accommodation and markets them as high-end log villas.

The two cabins ordered removed stand in an area designated for agriculture and forestry, where the city says no building rights have been allocated for them. Three other holiday cabins and an unpermitted outbuilding are in a residential area.

The committee says one cabin, licensed as a sauna building, must either be demolished or converted into a sauna. Another must be removed or permitted and converted into an outbuilding. A third has an unpermitted extension, which must be removed or approved. The outbuilding must also be demolished or permitted.

Environment director Päivi Pietarinen said the city learned about the buildings in the spring after receiving a report from a private individual. The city does not know exactly how long they have been there, but the two cabins facing demolition appear in aerial photographs from 2022. Pietarinen said she could not recall a recent case involving several buildings that contravene planning rules.

Property owner Mia-Riitta Niemi disputes the city’s interpretation. She says the two cabins ordered demolished are movable trailer cabins and that she sought advice from the city’s building control department about whether they required permits. The department considers them immovable because, among other things, foundations have been built for them.

Niemi also disagrees with the city over the other buildings, including their interior conditions and permit requirements. The city conducted inspections in September and October, and the committee’s agenda says Niemi was present at both. She says she did not have enough opportunity to present her view and considers the deadline unreasonable. Before the committee’s decision, she told Yle she would decide later what steps to take.