Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

1535456585971

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 487 ✭✭HerrKapitan


    Can the state allocate this for emergency accomodation instead of wasting (if) a well built house?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,099 ✭✭✭CrabRevolution


    No, the house is still in contravention of planning regulations no matter who occupies it. The ruling wasn't that the Murrays specifically couldn't live in the house.

    If the council or any state body started using it, someone would submit a complaint to ABP and the council would have to explain why a building they spent 20 years arguing is in violation of planning regulations is now suddenly fine despite there being no change of its status in the meantime.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,804 ✭✭✭JVince


    If they had built a normal sized house - similar to what they had ask planning for, I reckon they would have managed to get retention.

    That they built a very substantially larger house that more suits Southfork in Dallas than Navan, in effect giving two fingers to planning and their neighbours (don't think any gave any support whatsoever - which says plenty in itself)

    So let it be raised to the ground and serve as a warning to others who think they can do the same. - I see the guy in Sutton has agreed to demolish his monstrosity of an extension.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 45,528 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    The land is sterilised so there can be no developments on it (as they were told prior to building something twice the size)

    Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/ .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,804 ✭✭✭JVince


    Lands can be sterilised and still get planning in certain circumstances. Not easy, but can be done in extenuating circumstance.

    They would have had a chance with a normal sized house and if they had support of the community. But going by some local comments, there was zero support and zero sympathy for them locally. Seem to be the type that like to rub people up the wrong way



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,791 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    The idea that these guys just gave up and handed back the keys seems very naive, in hindsight.

    “The orders permitted removal of large steel container trucks blocking access to the property.”

    I hope they end up sharing a cell with Enoch Burke.


    https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2026/03/18/gardai-unable-to-locate-couple-whose-meath-home-was-built-without-permission-judge-told/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,106 ✭✭✭✭zell12




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,449 ✭✭✭deandean


    Looks like demolition will finally happen, and soon.

    I saw a house demolished recently and it took a couple of weeks. Firstly they went in and removed internal timberwork and windows etc, before the structure was knocked.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,996 ✭✭✭EagererBeaver


    When's Jerry Beades turning up?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,832 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    another article in the times today, totally one sided and all poor me, I tried giving the house to charity waffle.

    Just proves one thing to me. Paper will never refuse ink



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,536 ✭✭✭alias no.9


    Why would a charity want the millstone this couple hung around their own neck to be placed around the charity's neck?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 75,477 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The Irish Times should not have printed the charity thing as if it was a viable option. Journalism has gone to the dogs in this country.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,791 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    They're just reporting the news lads. They also report on the fact that there are steel containers blocking access, that the parents admitted dodging the gardai, that Doberman dogs were reported on site…

    Not sure anyone would read that article as supportive of the Murrays.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 37,415 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    “My son is 19 years of age and he was at home on his own when a man from the council came in (Monday) and gave him an order and told him to leave the house,” she said.

    “You would think we were the Kinahans [the organised crime group] ... with the amount of the security that was at the house. There were around 30 men in balaclavas watching the place the other night. We are being treated like animals turfed out on the street with nowhere to go. I’m disgusted.

    “We have applied to the European Court of Human Rights [under Rule 39 applies when a person is facing imminent harm or irreparable damage to their rights that cannot be remedied through normal judicial proceedings] to try to stop our house being demolished and are still awaiting a decision there, so how can they do this while that is ongoing?"

    Firstly, the fact their son was home alone when the guards/baliffs landed is irrelevant, because they would not have known who was or wasn't in the home at the time.

    And secondly, "…imminent harm or irreparable damage to their rights that cannot be remedied through normal judicial proceedings…" surely doesn't count considering their case has been remedied through normal judicial proceedings. They lost. Repeatedly. In every way, shape and form. Every level of the courts in Ireland ruled against them, repeatedly.

    Goes to show a) they're still trying to drag everything out through every court imaginable to just delay what is clearly inevitable, and b) still just a pure victim mentality.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,791 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    They wouldn't.

    The charity thing was another ruse to delay giving up possession. A year of negotiating with a housing charity, then presumably the plan was that the homeless family to be housed there would in fact be them, and ten years from now they'd still be living there.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 37,415 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Also probably to try and turn some public opinion against Meath County Council and paint them to be the bad guys; that the Murrays were trying to donate the house to a charity, but Meath County Council want to demolish it instead.

    Even though the whole crux of the issue is that nothing is permitted to be built on the land, MCC taking over (or allowing a charity org to take over) the property and keep it means MCC were then allowing the property to be retained and would give cause for the Murrays to then challenge that, and MCC refusing to allow it means they're demolishing a building which could have been used for housing (if not the Murrays, then likely people on the housing lists).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,680 ✭✭✭gipi


    Where was that printed?

    This is what he told the Irish Times....

    Chris Murray said his three children, aged between 19 and 24, were having their breakfast on Monday morning when security men arrived with gardaí.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 37,415 ✭✭✭✭Penn




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,909 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    Edited;

    Already linked.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,106 ✭✭✭✭zell12


    Rose Murray coming up on Newstalk after 9 to say the same. I assume Radio1 will have similar



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,420 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,106 ✭✭✭✭zell12


    Newstalk now, Rose giving a history of the last twenty years

    "i left the country, for living in my house for the last twenty years there is a warrant out for my arrest". Both her and Chris are "not in the country"

    "we put the steel containers there to protect ourselves" "you wouldn't see it in the movies so you wouldn't"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 11,508 ✭✭✭✭John_Rambo


    Refugees being mentioned now….

    Any sympathy for her waining now. I found her arrogant, defiant and rude. Everybody els's fault.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 487 ✭✭HerrKapitan




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 984 ✭✭✭steinbock123


    it’s woe is me all the way.
    Claire very poor on the questioning I thought. Hadn’t done her homework so didn’t know the right questions to ask it seemed to me.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 37,415 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Yeah such pure nonsense from her.

    Complaining about 20+ security & guards showing up at the house while also admitting they put a bunch of steel containers at the entrance to the site to help prevent access.

    "This is a civil matter, it should have been sorted 20 years ago" even though it was and the Murrays repeatedly were the ones who dragged the arse out of it.

    "We offered to reduce the size of it, even down to 1,000sq.ft, but they wouldn't even let you have a hen house on it" while also admitting what they built was about 5,600sq.ft with a carport and double garage without planning permission.

    And "We offered to give it to charity, let some good come out of it, but they said no which is ridiculous with the housing crisis" even though the exact reason for refusal is nothing is permitted to be built or retained on that site.

    Also acting like they're fugitives running from the law as if the arrest warrants aren't just a) a means to try and force agreement for the Murrays to comply with the legal orders to permit the house demolition, and b) enshrined in law as a punitive measure for refusal to comply with planning laws regarding unauthorised developments.

    For the love of all that's good and holy, get the house demolished ASAP and be done with the whole thing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,099 ✭✭✭CrabRevolution


    The "charity" suggestion is 100% just an effort to poison the discussion. There's no way they honestly believe that the house will immediately become planning compliant just because they personally aren't living there.

    It's an effort to:

    1. Make the council look bad for "denying" a "charity" a home.

    2. As you say, string out the process for even longer as they "organise" a handover to a "charity".

    3. Trying to manufacture grounds for another court case.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,596 ✭✭✭Economics101


    Headline in the Indo: "We're being treated worse than the Kinahans". 😂😂😂



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,781 ✭✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN


    I see in the Indo that they agreed in 2020 to vacate the house in 2022- but they never did. This “seizure” is a direct result of their non-action in 2022.

    I’ve zero pity for them- they’ve done a legal musical chairs for years now and finally the music has stopped and they find themselves chairless.

    While I do hope they recover all of their possessions before demolition, hard to know where they’ll store them- and of course, there’s likely a lien over expensive goods by the council that will be sold on to help recover some costs. No point in kicking them whilst they’re down- but extraordinary how they’ve burried their heads for so long - it’s been a very slow car crash



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,106 ✭✭✭✭zell12


    Claire back at it again, reading MeathCoCo statement. The judge Wednesday ordered demolishment "within 48 hours"



Advertisement
Advertisement