nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

bb1234567

What I find most shocking about this is the fact that some posters saying that thing pictured in the article is 'nice'.

Pure god awful tacky pile of Celtic tiger muck. Probably for the best it'll be demolished as they'll probably go bankrupt trying to light and heat that monstrously oversized home.

Donald Trump

Tiger20 wrote: »

Donald Trump wrote: »

They shouldn't granting permission to non-locals.
It shouldn't have mattered how many times you applied

If you knew anything, you would know that the locals only rule has been found to be illegal and discriminatory by the EU, (Flemish rule)but so far the Irish authorities have not responded to amend this, but of course that's okay as they can break the laws but no one else can. If the authorities are so keen to be lawful, and for its citizens to be lawful, then apply the law. In my particular case, I was successful eventually because I persevered through many stressful years and after loads of research, and was able to demonstrate that the granting of planning was consistent with other decisions made. Through my research I found many examples of applications granted while others refused. I have seen sites refused numerous times for different applicants, and the someone else is successful where others were told no dwelling would be allowed there. IMO, there is total inconsistency in the way the system is administered, which leads to total frustration.

I am well aware of arseholes taking cases to the EU.

My point still holds. They shouldn't be granting permission to non-locals. Simple as that.

If I were to become afflicted with some bout of sudden retardation which made me want to go and live in inner city Dublin, the chances of me getting a free house of the council would be very small.......yet if I had lived there my whole life, you can be fairly sure I'd get a nice central location close to both "me ma's" and the dole office.

Local rules are fine when it suits ya and not when it doesn't. That's about the size of it!

Let's see how you'll feel in maybe 20 years when the Council decide that there can only be one more house in the area and one of your kids wants to build to live beside you and where they grew up and went to school and play and coach in the local GAA club, only for you to be told that that one available slot is going up for raffle in an EU-wide tender and that your kid can just enter it along with a few thousand applicants from builders and speculators spread from France to Latvia. I'd say you'd change your tune fairly lively then :pac:

Homer

bb1234567 wrote: »

What I find most shocking about this is the fact that some posters saying that thing pictured in the article is 'nice'.

Pure god awful tacky pile of Celtic tiger muck. Probably for the best it'll be demolished as they'll probably go bankrupt trying to light and heat that monstrously oversized home.

The age old adage “money can’t buy you class” was never more appropriate.

Vestiapx

Donald Trump wrote: »

I am well aware of arseholes taking cases to the EU.

My point still holds. They shouldn't be granting permission to non-locals. Simple as that.

If I were to become afflicted with some bout of sudden retardation which made me want to go and live in inner city Dublin, the chances of me getting a free house of the council would be very small.......yet if I had lived there my whole life, you can be fairly sure I'd get a nice central location close to both "me ma's" and the dole office.

Local rules are fine when it suits ya and not when it doesn't. That's about the size of it!

Let's see how you'll feel in maybe 20 years when the Council decide that there can only be one more house in the area and one of your kids wants to build to live beside you and where they grew up and went to school and play and coach in the local GAA club, only for you to be told that that one available slot is going up for raffle in an EU-wide tender and that your kid can just enter it along with a few thousand applicants from builders and speculators spread from France to Latvia. I'd say you'd change your tune fairly lively then :pac:

The person who wants one off housing planning is not the person getting a free house in the city.

[Deleted User]

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It costs the taxpayer a lot more to provide services for one-off housing.

A lot more than what though? A lot more than building a metro underground in Dublin city centre?

Taxpayers in different areas have different needs.

Kaybaykwah

bladespin wrote: »

Agree but there lies the problem I think, Meath is one of the most difficult places to get planning afik they really seem to go out of their way to deny rather than engage, very discouraging, leading to the ‘feck them’ attitude.

What I can't figure out is why did the county council not summon the builder to stop construction at least mid course.
You have to wonder at the crazy expense taxpayers have to deal with unless the legal bills are all on the Murrays'.

What a waste.

[Deleted User]

I presume this is the house?

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.6730856,-6.7975464,469m/data=!3m1!1e3

If so, they must not get on well with the neighbours as nobody would ever even notice it, to report it. Someone they're 'friends' with is having a serious laugh at them behind their backs.

Treppen

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

What I can't figure out is why did the county council not summon the builder to stop construction at least mid course..

How would the council know they were building against the planning? They'd have to be watching every piece of land in Ireland.

Great move sticking the 80 year old granny in though.
Cheeky fux

lomb

Largely I think the planning laws are nonsense. There wasn't even a need for planning pre 1963 I don't see too many monstrosities. Problem with society today is they don't tolerate land ownership rights. Everyone wants a cut of everything. Realistically there is nothing wrong with leaving this house standing practically. It would damage the environment and waste resources to remove it. Who gives a flying f what anyone thinks of enforcing rules and regs that are made up for the wrong reasons.

lawrencesummers

lomb wrote: »

Largely I think the planning laws are nonsense. There wasn't even a need for planning pre 1963 I don't see too many monstrosities. Problem with society today is they don't tolerate land ownership rights. Everyone wants a cut of everything. Realistically there is nothing wrong with leaving this house standing practically. It would damage the environment and waste resources to remove it. Who gives a flying f what anyone thinks of enforcing rules and regs that are made up for the wrong reasons.

You might think the planning laws are nonsense until your next door neighbour decides to convert their house to a nightclub and your garden becomes a toilet.

Of somebody builds an apartment block behind you With a methadone clinic on the bottom floor and you don’t get anymore sunlight.
Or the council decides the field across from your house is an ideal place for a waste incinerator.

Planning laws exist for a reason, and a very good reason. Their application might be irrelevant and need improving but the idea that “planning laws are nonsense” is an incredible ignorant thing to say.

El Tarangu

Deleted User wrote: »

A lot more than what though? A lot more than building a metro underground in Dublin city centre?

Yes.

Donald Trump wrote: »

My point still holds. They shouldn't be granting permission to non-locals. Simple as that.
...

Let's see how you'll feel in maybe 20 years when the Council decide that there can only be one more house in the area and one of your kids wants to build to live beside you and where they grew up and went to school and play and coach in the local GAA club, only for you to be told that that one available slot is going up for raffle in an EU-wide tender and that your kid can just enter it along with a few thousand applicants from builders and speculators spread from France to Latvia. I'd say you'd change your tune fairly lively then :pac:

Either an area is suitable for planning and should be zoned and available to build by anyone with the money to buy it, or it isn't suitable and shouldn't be built upon by anyone. If you live in a city, you are competing with people from France and Latvia and everywhere else if you are looking to buy a house in your own area; the idea that certain people should have a preference when being granted planning in certain areas conferred upon them by virtue of their birth is anathema in a republic.

lomb wrote: »

Largely I think the planning laws are nonsense. There wasn't even a need for planning pre 1963 I don't see too many monstrosities.

You would probably feel different if I built a house uphill from you that did not have have proper drainage, and the run-off from my sceptic tank was going straight into your well.

eviltwin

No sympathy for them. Anger more than anything that they would put their kids and vulnerable mother in that position.

As for that letter....since when are 17 and 18 yr olds “young children”

whisky_galore

2018na wrote: »

Just to say I am familiar with the house and would know one of the Murrays but not the chap who built this house. My own view is they have made a monumental error of judgment with out question. But since then they have been through hell and back financially emotionally and I would imagine if they could turn the clock back then they never would dream of proceeding as they did with the build. In a lot of ways I feel they have served there sentence now and have been made an example of. It would be a shocking waste to demolish that building and would benefit no one. They are facing ginormous costs way above the value of the place anyway. It has set a precedent already imo no one in Ireland will attempt this again

Boo hoo.
Knock it.

We already allow chancers off with far too much in this country. There should always be consequences, even with a pre packaged sob story.

[Deleted User]

Donald Trump wrote: »

I am well aware of arseholes taking cases to the EU.

My point still holds. They shouldn't be granting permission to non-locals. Simple as that.

If I were to become afflicted with some bout of sudden retardation which made me want to go and live in inner city Dublin, the chances of me getting a free house of the council would be very small.......yet if I had lived there my whole life, you can be fairly sure I'd get a nice central location close to both "me ma's" and the dole office.

Local rules are fine when it suits ya and not when it doesn't. That's about the size of it!

Let's see how you'll feel in maybe 20 years when the Council decide that there can only be one more house in the area and one of your kids wants to build to live beside you and where they grew up and went to school and play and coach in the local GAA club, only for you to be told that that one available slot is going up for raffle in an EU-wide tender and that your kid can just enter it along with a few thousand applicants from builders and speculators spread from France to Latvia. I'd say you'd change your tune fairly lively then :pac:

What a load of ****e.

You want to apply locals only? Fine. No jobs and no college places for non dubs.

Silly isn't it?

lomb

El Tarangu wrote: »

Yes.

Either an area is suitable for planning and should be zoned and available to build by anyone with the money to buy it, or it isn't suitable and shouldn't be built upon by anyone. If you live in a city, you are competing with people from France and Latvia and everywhere else if you are looking to buy a house in your own area; the idea that certain people should have a preference when being granted planning in certain areas conferred upon them by virtue of their birth is anathema in a republic.

You would probably feel different if I built a house uphill from you that did not have have proper drainage, and the run-off from my sceptic tank was going straight into your well.

Probably but that isn't a planning issue but an environmental one. You should still be able to build your house provided my well isn't affected. Remember there was no planning pre 1963 and something like 1950 in the UK. No one died and no monstrosities were built. All that's happened is that house prices have shot vs incomes , builders are paid too much and I think it's largely due to the lack of planning. As trades specialise the price goes up even if nothing changes. My parents bought their house in 1990 for 60k , it's worth 600k today. So what would be 3 or 4 man years work is now about 14 . I don't care either way but Im not too partial to paying Irish taxation as see no value in it and want to move myself and my bus off shore.

StackSteevens

Deleted User wrote: »

I presume this is the house?

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.6730856,-6.7975464,469m/data=!3m1!1e3

If so, they must not get on well with the neighbours as nobody would ever even notice it, to report it. Someone they're 'friends' with is having a serious laugh at them behind their backs.

Perhaps that's because the lands on which they built their house were sterilised so no law abiding citizen could build a home beside them.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter if their house is located in the middle of a swamp ten miles from their nearest neighbours - they were refused permission to build it and went ahead.

And no amount of whataboutery, slurs on their neighbours or general abuse of the Irish or County Meath Planning Process can change that fact.

This thread is simply asking why the Irish State appears to be unable - or unwilling - to take whatever steps are required to ensure that a Supreme Court directive is carried out. If the Supreme Court's remit extends only as far as the Dublin-Meath border, then something is seriously wrong with this jokeshop country.

El Tarangu

lomb wrote: »

Probably but that isn't a planning issue but an environmental one.

Environmental aspect is one of the areas considered when granting or declining planning.

No one died and no monstrosities were built.

People used to die in house fires at a much higher rate before modern building regs were introduced.

All that's happened is that house prices have shot vs incomes , builders are paid too much and I think it's largely due to the lack of planning.

I thought you wanted to abolish planning(?)

My parents bought their house in 1990 for 60k , it's worth 600k today. So what would be 3 or 4 man years work is now about 14 .

Not entirely relevant to planning, but what interest rate did you parents pay in 1990?

Lewis_Benson

The "cute hoors" should be made watch as it's demolished.

bb1234567

whisky_galore wrote: »

Boo hoo.
Knock it.

We already allow chancers off with far too much in this country. There should always be consequences, even with a pre packaged sob story.

I agree , no sympathy here . They were adults who proceeded with construction knowing full well that this house was liable to be ordered to be demolished as it was built unlawfully. They took a chance and they lost, they live in a society with rules and tried to be an exception. I just don't think there's any reason to feel bad for them when they willingly put themselves in this position with the county council.

And they havnt been made an example, they are an example showing that if you fight and moan enough eventually you can overrule the laws everybody else works under. It absolutely needs to be demolished

tayto lover

Have just read part of this thread.
The Murrays previously bought 2 other sites and were refused planning permission. They said in their letter to the Meath Chronicle that other people were later given permission to build on these sites. How did that happen?

bb1234567

whisky_galore wrote: »

Boo hoo.
Knock it.

We already allow chancers off with far too much in this country. There should always be consequences, even with a pre packaged sob story.

Ash.J.Williams

lomb wrote: »

Probably but that isn't a planning issue but an environmental one. You should still be able to build your house provided my well isn't affected. Remember there was no planning pre 1963 and something like 1950 in the UK. No one died and no monstrosities were built. All that's happened is that house prices have shot vs incomes , builders are paid too much and I think it's largely due to the lack of planning. As trades specialise the price goes up even if nothing changes. My parents bought their house in 1990 for 60k , it's worth 600k today. So what would be 3 or 4 man years work is now about 14 . I don't care either way but Im not too partial to paying Irish taxation as see no value in it and want to move myself and my bus off shore.

Literal definition of a planning issue

lawrencesummers

lomb wrote: »

Probably but that isn't a planning issue but an environmental one. You should still be able to build your house provided my well isn't affected. Remember there was no planning pre 1963 and something like 1950 in the UK. No one died and no monstrosities were built. All that's happened is that house prices have shot vs incomes , builders are paid too much and I think it's largely due to the lack of planning. As trades specialise the price goes up even if nothing changes. My parents bought their house in 1990 for 60k , it's worth 600k today. So what would be 3 or 4 man years work is now about 14 . I don't care either way but Im not too partial to paying Irish taxation as see no value in it and want to move myself and my bus off shore.

Your gone past needing planning with the depth of the hole your digging

bb1234567

tayto lover wrote: »

Have just read part of this thread.
The Murrays previously bought 2 other sites and were refused planning permission. They said in their letter to the Meath Chronicle that other people were later given permission to build on these sites. How did that happen?

It is odd but may well have been something to do with the building proposed on these sites.

tayto lover

bb1234567 wrote: »

It is odd but may well have been something to do with the building proposed on these sites.

Or maybe a few quid to the right councillors. RTÉ should investigate again.

jimd2

tayto lover wrote: »

Have just read part of this thread.
The Murrays previously bought 2 other sites and were refused planning permission. They said in their letter to the Meath Chronicle that other people were later given permission to build on these sites. How did that happen?

I think that without comparing the plans it is very difficult to conclude anything on this. It is hard to imagine this family being happy with a boil standard house especially considering what they DID build.

Donald Trump

Vestiapx wrote: »

The person who wants one off housing planning is not the person getting a free house in the city.

Point is that if it is "ok" to have a preference for "locals" in relation to city or town housing in order to "preserve communities", why is it suddenly wrong to have it in relation to rural property?

If I want to live in Dublin city centre, well maybe I walk around and see all the fine locations which are "underused" (from an economic standpoint) where the city council have blocks of flats with people who, without wanting to cause offence, lets just say aren't exactly driving the economy of the country.

Donald Trump

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

What a load of ****e.

You want to apply locals only? Fine. No jobs and no college places for non dubs.

Silly isn't it?

You can do that if you want. The universities would be fairly empty though........

cnocbui

Is there a way to get a measure of how much decision making influence a property 'owner' has over what they can do with their property vs the decision making power of the state via planning laws, An Board Nyet and the unelected and answering to no one, An Taisce?

Whats the split; 30/70. 50/50, 80/20?

Donald Trump

El Tarangu wrote: »

Either an area is suitable for planning and should be zoned and available to build by anyone with the money to buy it, or it isn't suitable and shouldn't be built upon by anyone. If you live in a city, you are competing with people from France and Latvia and everywhere else if you are looking to buy a house in your own area; the idea that certain people should have a preference when being granted planning in certain areas conferred upon them by virtue of their birth is anathema in a republic.

No it's not. Some places can only support a limited amount of development. Therefore access to that needs to be prioritized. Local needs first. Simple as that.