Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

muffler · 09-08-2023 10:51am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120955691#Comment_120955691

Different country with different planning legislation.

muffler · 09-08-2023 10:55am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120955539#Comment_120955539

As others have said CAB can't get involved unless the house was built using the proceeds of criminal activity. And to correct other misinformation the State cannot simply take the house. There is no legislation for that.

coolbeans · 09-08-2023 10:59am

Planning Act is civil law not criminal. From that fact alone it should be clear to posters that CAB can't be involved.

Leg End Reject · 09-08-2023 10:59am

The house was presumably built without a mortgage as there's no planning permission. I'd imagine if the suggestion here to seize and repurpose it was a possibility it would cost a fortune to bring it up to building standards and then subdivide it. I'm not sure how all the homeless people/refugees would cope in rural Meath though.

It's hard to have sympathy for them when they built such an ostentatious monstrosity having been refused planning for a more modest home. If it's left standing it will set a precedent and make adhering to planning laws optional. It needs to go, the owners folly and arrogance should come back to bite them.

Gusser09 · 09-08-2023 11:03am

Nine year though. Shows how slow and poor our planning system is. That house should have been knocked a long time ago. Too many routes for appeals is part of the issue i suppose. Planning should be a cut and dry thing. Either its compliant or its not. Humans rights courts shouldnt come into it.

Shoog · 09-08-2023 11:04am

Not only should it go - but I will cheer when it does. Arrogant fuckers.

muffler · 09-08-2023 11:07am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120955800#Comment_120955800

Couldn't agree more but the problem is that every part of planning legislation can be challenged through the courts and that's where the real delays occur and very evident in this case.

ohnonotgmail · 09-08-2023 11:07am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120955754#Comment_120955754

I know. I was responding to somebody who said this

If this had have happened in the UK with roughly the same planning laws it would have been knocked within the year.

muffler · 09-08-2023 11:10am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120955823#Comment_120955823

Ah right, missed that part.

Seth Brundle · 09-08-2023 11:12am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120955686#Comment_120955686

I presume you didn't intend to quote me there.

ohnonotgmail · 09-08-2023 11:14am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120955841#Comment_120955841

you presume correctly. no idea how that happened.

Novice Self-Build · 09-08-2023 6:58pm

I think only 3 houses have been demolished in the last 50 years sue to being built without planning permission. A very public one in Wicklow not sure on the others.

There are definitely houses that have been assigned demolition orders but have never been demolished.

The local needs issue is complete nonsense and drives people to extreme action.

Shoog · 09-08-2023 7:19pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120957628#Comment_120957628

Its national policy and has its reasons. Very few people have a legitimate need to live outside of towns and most people benefit hugely from been within a serviced area. It is now national policy to provide serviced sites for one off builds on the edge of towns - the sort of buildings which would traditionally have been ribbon developments.

Gusser09 · 09-08-2023 7:23pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120957628#Comment_120957628

It wont be demolished. Lets be clear on that i suppose. I'd say the Murrays are under serious stress and pressure though with the threat of action. What do they expect though i suppose. Madness.

GreeBo · 09-08-2023 7:49pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120955636#Comment_120955636

CAB doesnt mean organized crime!

Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 to 2016 the Bureau can freeze and seize assets which it shows to the High Court are the proceeds of criminal conduct. This is done on the civil standard of proof which is know internationally as non-Conviction Based Forfeiture.

As already stated, CAB are entitled to go after white-collar criminals under their remit.

GreeBo · 09-08-2023 7:54pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120955686#Comment_120955686

Criminal = Someone who has committed a crime

Crime = an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law.

From The Office of the Planning Regulator:

Any development which requires permission and does not have that permission is unauthorised development, as is a development which is proceeding in breach of conditions laid down in the planning permission. The carrying out of unauthorised development is an offence.

But I'm sure you lads know more than they do.

Shoog · 09-08-2023 7:55pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120957786#Comment_120957786

Planning breaches are not a crime - how often do people have to repeat this.

GreeBo · 09-08-2023 7:56pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120955707#Comment_120955707

The couple stand to benefit from the offense of building without planning permission. CABs' remit is to prevent people from benefitting from criminal activities. Thus, again, it could fall under CABs remit to take the house.

HeidiHeidi · 09-08-2023 7:56pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120957707#Comment_120957707

I'm tempted to go back and count the amount of times you've posted that it won't be demolished.

It's a LOT.

I think we know your opinion at this stage!

GreeBo · 09-08-2023 7:57pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120955787#Comment_120955787

Is there any evidence that its not up to current standards?

GreeBo · 09-08-2023 7:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120957808#Comment_120957808

I've already quoted the regulator who states that it is indeed an offense.

The very bloody definition of the word "offense" is

a crime that breaks a particular law and requires a particular punishment.

but don't let that stop you!

Shoog · 09-08-2023 8:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120957828#Comment_120957828

"

However the existence of retrospective applications reflects the longstanding principle that a breach of planning control in itself is not and should not be a criminal offence"

https://imbusiness.passle.net/post/102hi76/getting-tough-on-planning-breaches

This is from the UK but the principle is exactly the same in Ireland.

GreeBo · 09-08-2023 8:12pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120955785#Comment_120955785

Better go tell the lads who wrote the act so as it clearly references (highlighted below) imprisonment, which would deem it a criminal offence.

Not to mention the fact that I have quoted numerous times already that its listed as an offense in the bloody act itself!

http://www.acts.ie/en.act.2000.0030.15.html

(9) Any person who knowingly assists or permits the failure by another to comply with an enforcement notice shall be guilty of an offence.

(10) Particulars of an enforcement notice shall be entered in the register.

(11) (a) A planning authority may for stated reasons by notice in writing to any person served with the notice, and, where appropriate, any person who made a representation under section 152 (1)(a), withdraw an enforcement notice served under this section.

(b) Where an enforcement notice is withdrawn pursuant to this subsection by a planning authority or where a planning authority finds that an enforcement notice has been complied with, the fact that the enforcement notice was withdrawn and the reason for the withdrawal or that it was complied with, as appropriate, shall be recorded by the authority in the register.

(12) An enforcement notice shall cease to have effect 10 years from the date of service of the notice under subsection (1) or, if a notice is served under subsection (3)(b), 10 years from the date of service of the notice under that subsection.

(13) A person shall not question the validity of an enforcement notice by reason only that the person or any other person, not being the person on whom the enforcement notice was served, was not notified of the service of the enforcement notice.

(14) A report of a local authority under section 50 of the Local Government Act, 1991 , shall contain details of the number of enforcement notices issued under this section, warning notices issued under section 153 , prosecutions brought under section 157 and injunctions sought under section 160 by that authority.

Issue of enforcement notice in cases of urgency.

155. —(1) Where, in the opinion of the planning authority, due to the nature of an unauthorised development and to any other material considerations, it is necessary to take urgent action with regard to the unauthorised development, notwithstanding sections 152 and 153, it may serve an enforcement notice under section 154 .

(2) Where an enforcement notice is issued in accordance with subsection (1), any person who made a representation under section 152(1)(a) shall be notified in writing within two weeks of the service of the notice.

Penalties for offences.

156. —(1) A person who is guilty of an offence under sections 58(4), 63, 151, 154, 205, 230(3), 239 and 247 shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £10,000,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or to both, or

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,500, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to both.

(2) Where a person is convicted of an offence referred to in subsection (1) and there is a continuation by him or her of the offence after his or her conviction, he or she shall be guilty of a further offence on every day on which the contravention continues and for each such offence shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £10,000 for each day on which the offence is so continued, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or to both, provided that if a person is convicted in the same proceedings of 2 or more such further offences the aggregate term of imprisonment to which he or she shall be liable shall not exceed 2 years, or

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £400 for each day on which the offence is so continued or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to both, provided that if a person is convicted in the same proceedings of 2 or more such further offences the aggregate term of imprisonment to which he or she shall be liable shall not exceed 6 months.

(3) Where a person is convicted of an offence referred to in subsection (1) involving the construction of an unauthorised structure, the minimum fine shall be—

(a) on conviction on indictment, the estimated cost of the construction of the structure or £10,000, whichever is less, or

(b) on summary conviction, the estimated cost of the construction of the structure or £500, whichever is less,

except where the person convicted can show to the court's satisfaction that he or she does not have the necessary financial means to pay the minimum fine.

(4) Any person who is guilty of an offence under this Act other than an offence referred to in subsection (1) (or a further offence under subsection (2)) shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.