Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

StackSteevens

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/council-takes-legal-advice-as-deadline-to-demolish-co-meath-house-passes-1.3532240

So then:

June 2006 - Meath County Council refused planning permission.

March 2007 Meath County Council informed that a large house had been built on the lands.

May 2007 - Retention permission refused on the five-bedroomed property.

Nov 2008 - Compromise offer by the Murrays to demolish part of the 588 sq m home is rejected by planners.

July 2010 - High Court orders the house be demolished and given two years to comply. The case is appealed to the Supreme Court

May 2017 - The Supreme Court upholds the original High Court decision and orders the Murrays to demolish their home within 12 months.

June 2018 - having completely ignored the Supreme Court order, the Murrays issue a plea to Meath County Councillors to be allowed to continue waving their two fingers at Ireland's Planning Laws and the Supreme Court.

Since then, there has been silence.

Does anyone know what the latest is, please?

Because, if they are still getting away with this, then the Irish Supreme Court must be regarded as an international laughing stock.

ELM327

It's actually quite a nice house. Why werent' they given permission? Meath Co Co can be knobs at the best of times.

Vicxas

Lovely house, and yes MCC can be unbearable arseholes the best of times but its pure Celtic Tiger arrogance from the Murrays.

partyguinness

StackSteevens wrote: »

Because, if they are still getting away with this, then the Irish Supreme Court must be regarded as an international laughing stock.

Why? The Supreme Court juustices do not jump into JCBs and have a field trip to Meath.

It is now for the Council take enforcement proceedings and ask the Court to start penalising the owners for contempt of court.

Like all Councils they generally do not have to the balls or stomach for the fight. They prefer the quiet life them planners- just let it sit on some pencil pusher's desk for the next 20 years.

Widdensushi

They were refused permission to build a 300 square meter house so they built a 600 square meter one without permission, knock it down I am afraid, you shouldn't be rewarded for that carry on, I would love to put up a shed in my back yard but it would need to be over the size that doesn't require planning so I will wait till I have the funds to look at getting planning etc.

cameramonkey

Horrible looking monstrosity, tough on them but I just went through the expense and pain of a planning application and an objection to ANP , I don't see why these people should be allowed to do as they please when everyone else has to go through a legal planning route. Should be knocked.

StackSteevens

partyguinness wrote: »

It is now for the Council take enforcement proceedings and ask the Court to start penalising the owners for contempt of court.

Is that the current situation, more than 3 years after the Supreme Court verdict, or are you speculating?


As an aside I wonder whether the shameless law breakers have ever paid Property Tax on their illegally built residence.








.

sameoldname

StackSteevens wrote: »

As an aside I wonder whether the shameless law breakers have ever paid Property Tax on their illegally built residence.

I'd imagine the property is valued at €0 as they'd never be able to sell it.

bmc58

Vicxas wrote: »

Lovely house, and yes MCC can be unbearable arseholes the best of times but its pure Celtic Tiger arrogance from the Murrays.

Who are "the Murrays"?

StackSteevens

bmc58 wrote: »

Who are "the Murrays"?

A pure shot in the dark here, but I suspect that they may be the people referred to in the Opening Post.

Ginger83

14 years........ some law

Odelay

"The couple bought the site in 2006, and applied for permission to build a 283sq m dormer bungalow. That was refused. However, the Murrays went on to build a much larger 588sq m house."

Christ there must be some money in plumbing..


And the house is not nice, it is a monstrosity.

partyguinness

Doesnt matter how great the house is. It is still out in back arse Meath.

bmc58

StackSteevens wrote: »

A pure shot in the dark here, but I suspect that they may be the people referred to in the Opening Post.

Very smart,but I was looking for a little more info than that.

Ginger83

partyguinness wrote: »

Doesnt matter how great the house is. It is still out in back arse Meath.

I suppose it is a matter of opinion what people see as a good location. Personally i think Dublin is a kip but some think that there is nothing outside the M50 except Turkey for the holliers

ELM327

partyguinness wrote: »

Doesnt matter how great the house is. It is still out in back arse Meath.

If you're looking for a garden filled with grass rather than junkies, Meath is great.

StackSteevens

OK. So we have a Supreme Court directive that this illegal development should be demolished within 12 months of its judgement being published.

Two years later, it appears that this hasn't happened, which is a clear breach of the Supreme Court's directive/instruction or whatever the correct term is.

Does this not mean that someone - either Meath County Council which took the original case or the lawbreakers (or both) - is/are in contempt of court?

How can a concerned citizen take steps to inform the Court that a State Agency is treating its directive with complete contempt?

Can the CEO of Meath County Council be prosecuted for failing to carry out a Supreme Court directive?

Maybe the new Minister for Justice - who, coincidentally is a Meath TD - could display her respect for the Supreme Court by insisting that its directive be implemented immediately.

Homer

Zero sympathy for people like this. They knew 100% what they were doing and hopefully will now reap what they sowed.

maestroamado

Who is paying legal fees, legal aid?

CrabRevolution

I remember reading about this case in the Meath Chronicle and scouring the article looking for what their case or excuse would be. They didn't even try to come up with a plausible reason, just "We made a little mistake" and "the council want to demolish our house and make us homeless"

theunforgiven

Could this set a precedent for people doing similar and then trying to ride out the storm knowing that MCC don't have balls to follow through??

StupidLikeAFox

Such a waste to build that house to have it knocked down. Not that I think they should get to live in it either after their carry on - are they constantly looking over their shoulder I wonder now and expecting the knock on the door at any time.

I also suppose that they don't have a mortgage on this - surely the bank wouldn't lend money unless the legalities were all in order?

Ultima Thule

I can imagine they got verbal assurances from someone in the council that the process would be followed but not enforced.

The next people to try it will be the ones that get enforcement.

Bullocks

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Such a waste to build that house to have it knocked down. Not that I think they should get to live in it either after their carry on - are they constantly looking over their shoulder I wonder now and expecting the knock on the door at any time.

I also suppose that they don't have a mortgage on this - surely the bank wouldn't lend money unless the legalities were all in order?

Be some mess if they had a mortgage and had to knock it . Nothing would surprise me with regards to the banks lending for dodgy property back in 2006/07 though

StupidLikeAFox

Just found this letter they wrote to councillors as a last ditch attempt to save the home. They are now faced with a 300k demolition cost. Their new proposal is that if the council just let it go then the Murrays will keep the house, will pay off all legal costs and that will be their punishment. However if they follow through on the court order the council are making 6 people homeless and it will cost the council €500k in legal fees + demolition costs

https://www.meathchronicle.ie/2018/06/05/letter-couple-appeal-to-meath-councillors-to-help-stop-demolition-order/

Hard to have any sympathy for these people though - they applied three times for planning permission, they didn't even appeal the last one and went ahead and built a house bigger than any planner had seen.

boogerballs

theunforgiven wrote: »

Could this set a precedent for people doing similar and then trying to ride out the storm knowing that MCC don't have balls to follow through??

Given that Irish law is based on Common Law where cases are judged against precedents could this open a can of worms for the council. If these get away with it what is to stop anyone in Meath with a site just throwing up a house.

The baffling thing about the house that they built is that it doesnt even match any of the surrounding houses, it is a monster of a house compared to the others beside it. One of the requirements of the Meath CoCo Local Needs planning permission is that the house has to be of a similar type so it doesnt look too out of place. These guys ignored every single requirement but still the house is standing 15 years later.

John_Rambo

Jesus, the hack of it. Were they trying to disguise it as an American retirement home?

boogerballs

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Just found this letter they wrote to councillors as a last ditch attempt to save the home. They are now faced with a 300k demolition cost. Their new proposal is that if the council just let it go then the Murrays will keep the house, will pay off all legal costs and that will be their punishment. However if they follow through on the court order the council are making 6 people homeless and it will cost the council €500k in legal fees + demolition costs

https://www.meathchronicle.ie/2018/06/05/letter-couple-appeal-to-meath-councillors-to-help-stop-demolition-order/

Hard to have any sympathy for these people though - they applied three times for planning permission, they didn't even appeal the last one and went ahead and built a house bigger than any planner had seen.

They start the letter by saying that the land was in a highly sought after location and they had to pay over the odds pre-auction to secure it, then when trying to justify the reason for them to keep it they say its not in a prominent location.... can't be both.

What they are essentially asking is how much will it cost for them to stay and they'll pay that amount. While at the same time saying they can't afford the demolition. Pure chancers.

El Tarangu

In an instance such as this, would the architect or the builder be in trouble for going ahead and building it anyway when there was no planning in place, or is this the sole responsibility of the owner?

Kamu

Just a quick question.

I know these people are chancers, but let's say they actually couldn't afford to demolish the house.

What would happen then, would they be legally required to get a loan for the cost?

Would the council have to go ahead and do it and waste all that money? Or would they take the people to court again for the costs?

John_Rambo

El Tarangu wrote: »

In an instance such as this, would the architect or the builder be in trouble for going ahead and building it anyway when there was no planning in place, or is this the sole responsibility of the owner?

I seriously doubt an architect was engaged for this building!