Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

Options
1…1213151718…33

Comments

  • Options
    #422
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users Posts: 19,616 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    Butterface wrote: »
    Meath CoCo will let it slide..

    Would be bad news for planning in the entire county if they did, it would be a big signal to everyone else that you can build whatever you want and they wont enforce their own laws. They need to be making an example of out people who stick two fingers up to the planning laws, I know they are often arcane but plenty of people have built houses in Meath inside the laws.


  • Options
    #423
    chewed
    Registered Users Posts: 3,408 ✭✭✭chewed


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    Would be bad news for planning in the entire county if they did, it would be a big signal to everyone else that you can build whatever you want and they wont enforce their own laws. They need to be making an example of out people who stick two fingers up to the planning laws, I know they are often arcane but plenty of people have built houses in Meath inside the laws.

    Couldn't agree more. No excuses for this. If you build something that you didn't get permission for, you should be forced to knock it immediately....no ifs or buts!


  • Options
    #424
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,625 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    I disagree, this is a great victory against the nonsense that is Meath CO CO and their ridiculous local needs laws.


  • Options
    #425
    CrankyHaus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭CrankyHaus


    ELM327 wrote: »
    I disagree, this is a great victory against the nonsense that is Meath CO CO and their ridiculous local needs laws.

    Even better than that. A great victory against any laws at all. Don't follow them if you don't want to and the only consequence will be a load of taxpayers' money getting wasted in the courts.


  • Options
    #426
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,172 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    chewed wrote: »
    Couldn't agree more. No excuses for this. If you build something that you didn't get permission for, you should be forced to knock it immediately....no ifs or buts!




    Well there is an opportunity to apply for retention and I think that that should be there in general.



    But if that is denied then of course it should have to be dismantled.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #427
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,213 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    ELM327 wrote: »
    I disagree, this is a great victory against the nonsense that is Meath CO CO and their ridiculous local needs laws.

    What victory?

    The couple have been ordered to demolish the structure.

    If they don't comply, next stop jail.


  • Options
    #428
    Widdensushi
    Registered Users Posts: 5,182 ✭✭✭Widdensushi


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    What victory?

    The couple have been ordered to demolish the structure.

    If they don't comply, next stop jail.

    They are living in the house thirteen years now, no sign of that changing


  • Options
    #429
    Thargor
    Registered Users Posts: 17,891 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Widdensushi wrote: »
    They are living in the house thirteen years now, no sign of that changing
    Divide the amount of money spent by 13 and it wont look like great value for money if its demolished in year 14 or 15 though...


  • Options
    #430
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,912 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    They must have connections.

    Anyway, if anyone is refused planning going forward they should take a judicial review and cite the Murrays.

    They can apply for retention by now I'd say. Wonder who is on the Council that they know.


  • Options
    #431
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,912 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    What victory?

    The couple have been ordered to demolish the structure.

    If they don't comply, next stop jail.

    Enforcement of that order is the issue though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #432
    StackSteevens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭StackSteevens


    sydthebeat wrote: »

    The couple have been ordered to demolish the structure.

    If they don't comply, next stop jail.

    Only if Meath County Council grows some cojones and brings them to court!

    .


  • Options
    #433
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,592 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    CrankyHaus wrote: »
    Even better than that. A great victory against any laws at all. Don't follow them if you don't want to and the only consequence will be a load of taxpayers' money getting wasted in the courts.

    And you would take the same view if someone illegally built a mansion overlooking your property?


  • Options
    #434
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,130 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    ELM327 wrote: »
    I disagree, this is a great victory against the nonsense that is Meath CO CO and their ridiculous local needs laws.

    This case was nothing to do with local needs.
    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    They can apply for retention by now I'd say.
    Did you read the article/OP?
    They applied for retention in 2006 and multiple other times. Council refused are took them to court.


  • Options
    #435
    smelly sock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,820 ✭✭✭smelly sock


    Id say the council are now wishing they had granted retention.


  • Options
    #436
    Widdensushi
    Registered Users Posts: 5,182 ✭✭✭Widdensushi


    smelly sock wrote: »
    Id say the council are now wishing they had granted retention.

    If they did there would be houses popping up all over the county


  • Options
    #437
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,901 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Widdensushi wrote: »
    If they did there would be houses popping up all over the county

    No there wouldn't. The public in general would never be aware they got retention. The economy could probably do with houses popping up all over the place, though that wouldn't happen either.


  • Options
    #438
    donspeekinglesh
    Registered Users Posts: 1,863 ✭✭✭donspeekinglesh


    Couple have two years to leave house built in breach of planning laws - https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/couple-have-two-years-to-leave-house-built-in-breach-of-planning-laws-1018884.html

    Though the dates in the article are a bit confusing. they keep putting today's date and not 2022


  • Options
    #439
    Vicxas
    Registered Users Posts: 15,288 ✭✭✭✭Vicxas


    https://www.meathchronicle.ie/2020/09/24/meath-couple-agree-to-leave-house-they-built-in-breach-of-planning-laws/?fbclid=IwAR3OMMQJ2a7Tyu8EEkhMFKVP3Vt5lV-_11VRkjOI1sri7A40yvTP4oHx--U

    Looks like they're being turfed out alright


  • Options
    #440
    Bullocks
    Registered Users Posts: 5,890 ✭✭✭Bullocks


    Does anyone really think they will be out in 2022? I don't.


  • Options
    #441
    StackSteevens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭StackSteevens


    I see from the above link that Meath County Council had actually initiated High Court proceedings against the Murrays last year and would like to commend them for that.

    I think that it's only fair that I also apologise for my earlier criticisms of the County Council for what I wrongly believed was its reluctance to pursue this long-running issue to a satisfactory conclusion. I really hope that, in two years' time, the Murrays will honour their sworn undertaking. ( I can't help wondering who will pay for the demolition!)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #442
    air
    Registered Users Posts: 2,822 ✭✭✭air


    Did they get a 3 year extension last year then?
    Justice delayed is justice denied surely.


  • Options
    #443
    deandean
    Registered Users Posts: 2,229 ✭✭✭deandean


    I'll bet a fiver that house will never be demolished, and the occupants will come up with some form of a deal involving a local high-ranking politician that will lead to a compromise whereby retention will be granted, with a few added conditions such as knock down the garage.


  • Options
    #444
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,912 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    deandean wrote: »
    I'll bet a fiver that house will never be demolished, and the occupants will come up with some form of a deal involving a local high-ranking politician that will lead to a compromise whereby retention will be granted, with a few added conditions such as knock down the garage.

    Well if they were told to demolish half of it let's say, so as not to make them homeless, that would provide some sanction, and might be a way forward.

    Not saying that's perfect by any means, but let them pay for demolition of part of it and reinstatement of the remaining smaller ordinary 3 bedroom gaff. They could also donate some of their land for social housing. (lol).

    I dunno. I absolutely detest the hubris of some people who just give two fingers to the rules that everyone else has to abide by.

    There are so many threads on here where people are so stressed out for building a wall, the mind boggles.


  • Options
    #445
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,558 ✭✭✭dubrov


    Bullocks wrote:
    Does anyone really think they will be out in 2022? I don't.

    The mind boggles. They have already ignored about 3 court orders and now here comes the fourth. It's probably the most lax of all.


  • Options
    #446
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,912 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    dubrov wrote: »
    The mind boggles. They have already ignored about 3 court orders and now here comes the fourth. It's probably the most lax of all.

    Mad IMO.

    When you think about the rules regarding boundaries and other easy things to solve and all that. And this is a mansion with NO planning.

    I give up. But would cite this in any planning application I might have no matter where I lived.


  • Options
    #447
    Dempo1
    Registered Users Posts: 26,957 ✭✭✭✭Dempo1


    I see an update this morning in the indo. Agreement reached, couple will live in house for two more years with an agreement to vacate it and demolition thereafter. Hard to know what to think, I agree the build of the property wrong albeit seems a little harsh after all these years to demolish it. There are young children to consider also. I guess it's a harsh, harsh lesson but an end to this saga is nearing.

    https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/couple-agree-to-leave-a-house-they-built-in-breach-of-planning-laws-in-two-years-time-39560707.html

    Is maith an scáthán súil charad.




  • Options
    #448
    nophd08
    Registered Users Posts: 471 ✭✭nophd08


    I think demolishing the whole thing is a waste. Half would be enough along with a very substantial fine.


  • Options
    #449
    smelly sock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,820 ✭✭✭smelly sock


    Dempo1 wrote: »
    I see an update this morning in the indo. Agreement reached, couple will live in house for two more years with an agreement to vacate it and demolition thereafter. Hard to know what to think, I agree the build of the property wrong albeit seems a little harsh after all these years to demolish it. There are young children to consider also. I guess it's a harsh, harsh lesson but an end to this saga is nearing.

    https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/couple-agree-to-leave-a-house-they-built-in-breach-of-planning-laws-in-two-years-time-39560707.html

    I tend to agree. Boards isnt known to be a bastion of empathy though.

    Wtf were they thinking would be my thoughts. I'm currently looking at having an ectension to the side and no way would i even attempt to do it without PP.


  • Options
    #450
    Dempo1
    Registered Users Posts: 26,957 ✭✭✭✭Dempo1


    nophd08 wrote: »
    I think demolishing the whole thing is a waste. Half would be enough along with a very substantial fine.

    Very very difficult if not impossible to vacate a supreme court order I guess. I don't know the house but by all accounts it's seems very big.

    Is maith an scáthán súil charad.




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #451
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Dempo1 wrote: »
    I see an update this morning in the indo. Agreement reached, couple will live in house for two more years with an agreement to vacate it and demolition thereafter. Hard to know what to think, I agree the build of the property wrong albeit seems a little harsh after all these years to demolish it. There are young children to consider also. I guess it's a harsh, harsh lesson but an end to this saga is nearing.

    https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/couple-agree-to-leave-a-house-they-built-in-breach-of-planning-laws-in-two-years-time-39560707.html
    They have been flouting the law so long the young kids are 20, 19 and 14.


Advertisement