Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

Gregor Samsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122093258#Comment_122093258

I think the poster means that the specific house can never get planning permission. The Council claims there was a Section 47 order on the land (from the time of the previous owners) prohibiting building on it. So it's not possible to get planning permission (retention or otherwise) with that in place. The family in question dispute that the Section 47 order was formally entered into, so the determination of its validity seems to be still going though the courts.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122093258#Comment_122093258

Unlikely they would get retention permission having built on sterile land.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122093258#Comment_122093258

You won't on a whole house because it set a precedent. It's entirely different for extensions.

Schorpio

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122093280#Comment_122093280

Ahh, right. I probably mis-interpreteted the statement to be a generality. Yes, that is true in this instance.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122093326#Comment_122093326

Yes probably, but that's not defined in law.

danfrancisco83

It's really annoying me that the Google map driver didn't go up the lane so I could have a proper nosey :)

Gusser09

So the courts could yet find in their favour re the section 47order. If they do they can then apply for retention. The council would want to hope all of their paperwork is in line.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122092745#Comment_122092745

That's not correct.

7 years is the limit on enforcement. But there is nothing that says after 7 years it can never get planning. For example this house is there over 15 years and there is a current appeal to grant planning. They are unlikely to be successful, but legally planning could be granted even now.

It's also incorrect to say that not having planning renders a house valueless. That really makes no sense. Am enforcement order will obviously cripple the value. But once the 7 years are passed, the house won't be demolished so it usually retains most of its value. How much the value drops is decided by the market.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122097327#Comment_122097327

One major issue is that you would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to obtain a mortgage on that property, or any property not in compliance with planning.

Another is that, although the Council cannot commence any enforcement proceedings after the 7 year time, any future permission to develop or modify anything on that site would likely be subject to the condition that the entire development be brought into compliance. Which could, in effect, make it impractical to develop the site any further ever again if we were talking about an expensive development like this case. Bringing it into compliance could simply mean getting retention. If that isn't an option, the noncompliant part would have to be physically changed to be complaint.

The above two reasons are why the property would be devalued a lot. Not worthless, but definitely impaired considerably.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122097327#Comment_122097327

Find a single example where a house has been given retention after the 7 year rule. It never happens because every council knows what that would mean in terms of rouge buildings. Council planning officers meet up regularly and this will have been decided on a whole country basis.

Secondly not having planning but having passed the seven years undetected means that you cannot make any material changes to the outside of the house for fear that a fresh enforcement notice could be issued resetting the clock back to zero.

This was the exact advice my friends solicitor gave him when he sought to buy the house - and the original asking price was in the region of €300k and the final price that was accepted was around €25k.

The law may not be prescriptive in the detail of what can happen - but common practice is very prescriptive as to how these cases are handled.

In this specific case, a judge will never overturn the the decision of the council with regard to one off houses because it would make a mockery of the whole planning process and he would be well aware of this. The only basis that a planning decision could be overturned is if the original decision erred in the application of planning law - which at this stage will have been established as not having happened.

This couple are playing the appeals system but ultimately it will grind into the dust and then it's just a matter of whether the council have the bottle to appear to be forcing the demolition of the house.

Muahahaha

People in this thread talk of demolition of the house but given this saga has been ongoing for more than 15 years what Id really like to see is the house being blown up with dynamite to give everyone a show and something to talk about.

Just like they did to this house in Utah last week, they blew the sh1t out of it 😂

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYugOqjDqNw%20

Demolition is relatively boring, its detonation I want 👍️

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122097368#Comment_122097368

That true but doesn’t changes what I said. I was aware of both cases, as you probably knew.
Banks won’t touch a property where enforcement could wipe of the collateral. They may do after 7 years, as the risk is gone. Or where another property is collateral. Regardless, value is set by the market, not whether a bank will touch it.

A subsequent development is not possible while non-compliant. But is someone really looking to extend a 600sqm house? Doubt it.

Both of those will reduce value as I said, but suggest it becomes worthless is nonsense. Once it can remain there in perpetuity, it has considerable value.
(obvious not the case here with enforcement having taken plave with 7 years).

cnocbui

The university of Limerick seems to have just built a whole lot of student houses without planning permission. For the sake of consistency, these should be ordered bulldozed, right?

The homes accommodate 80 students, do not have planning permission and
cost millions of euro more than the alternative proposal at Park Point, a
UL building closer to the campus.

Never mind the national need for housing being critical, upholding the wonderful planning system is more important. A message needs to be sent to discourage other official state bodies from doing likewise, right?

Want to bet it gets sorted because of who's in breach, vs the Murrays? The planning system is an overly restrictive burdensome turd, particularly the insane locals only provissions. It's the root cause of almost all the official corruption in this country, of which there have been too many to count, and that's just those that have been rumbled. Manufacturers of brown paper bags likely wouldn't agree with me.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122097376#Comment_122097376

Retention is regularly is granted after the 7 year limit. Saying you can never get planning at that point is simply untrue.
Most commonly, people need to apply for retention years later to bring it in line when selling.

Planners have to follow planning law. They can’t meet up in secret and invent rules.

Secondly not having planning but having passed the seven years undetected means that you cannot make any material changes to the outside of the house for fear that a fresh enforcement notice could be issued resetting the clock back to zero.

Also incorrect. The statute of limitations is 7 years. Council do have have the ability to reset that clock. It’s a literally statutory.

The reason you can’t undertake further development even after the 7 years is is because planning permission won’t be granted with unauthorised development on site. If you did go ahead and extend (for example) without planning, enforcement could only be undertaken in regards to the extension. The "7 years" are not reset for the house. Whoever told you thing misunderstood something.

In this specific case, a judge will never overturn the the decision of the council with regard to one off houses because it would make a mockery of the whole planning process and he would be well aware of this. The only basis that a planning decision could be overturned is if the original decision erred in the application of planning law - which at this stage will have been established as not having happened.

I agree they won't get planning permission in this case. Nor should they.
But the above does not apply to this case.

The point I'm disputing is the idea that when "a house has passed its 7 year limit it can never get planning permission".
Obviously that wasn't about this specific house, as this house did not get remotely near 7 years before enforcement was undertaken.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122093280#Comment_122093280

Nope. As mentioned the comments didn't apply to this specific house. Which was refused retention permission after a few months. Around 6 years and 9 months short of the statue of limitations.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122099747#Comment_122099747

I think you've misread that article.
The university didn't built student houses without planning. They bought the houses which were already been built.

There is no unauthorised development. They just need to lodge a change of use application before moving students in. Nothing in common with the Murray Mansion. Can why they would need to bulldozed for the sake of consistency.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122100393#Comment_122100393

You are correct, I did misread it. They already moved students in, applied to have the planning ammended and have failed in that process.

Although 80 students have been living at Rhebogue since October, Limerick City
and County Council issued a warning letter last year to UL challenging
the use of the houses for student residences. The university disputed
such claims in a formal reply to the local authority but it has yet to
hand down a determination.

At the height of the controversy in recent days, however, the council
issued an adverse ruling to Silvergrove on its October application for
retention permission in relation to boundary and landscaping issues at
Rhebogue.

Limerick City and County Council said: “It appears to the planning authority
that the proposed development relates to a site, the use of which is
considered unauthorised for use as student accommodation. The retention
of works associated would facilitate this unauthorised use and therefore
the planning authority are not disposed to granting permission.”

Reminds me of that case recently in Dublin. Trinity wanted to build much needed student accommodation but their plan was rejected because a wealthy woman with a property with a view to the university decided she didn't like the prospect of an alteration to the view she enjoyed.

Nyet must the favourite default response of planners in this country.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122100647#Comment_122100647

Thats an odd interpretation of that article.

The council claim they have moved people in. The university denied the claim.

Where does it say anything about failed to have the planning amended? It clearly said the decision was not made yet;

[the local authority] has yet to hand down a determination.

Plus the first article mentioned an application directly to ABP who also decide directly. The refusal mentioned was for the builder to retaining landscaping in the public area, not the housing. Council may have overstepped there.

Even if UL did move students in early. They are entitled to apply for a change of use. And there’s absolutely no out outcome where the houses get demolished.

The Trinity story seems like tabloid exaggeration. No doubt a neighbour complained, but I doubt it was the only relevant submission on a historic sight.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122101944#Comment_122101944

I https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/challenge-allowed-to-planning-permission-for-trinity-hall-expansion/39657857.html

Only one person is mentioned challenging the planning that was granted resulting in it being overturned. Another article uses the plural when mentioning residents, but it could as easily still be just the woman who brought the action, and her husband. Basically they chose to live next to a university, which I belive predates them, but don't like how students behave when they are inebriated, which is the same as it has been since the creation of such institutions.

Probably one of the more acute cases of nimbyism that are so common.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122103060#Comment_122103060

Trinity Hall isn't next to the University. It's in a residential area, Dartry.