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?

1555658606171

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭adaminho




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,055 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    I assume the house was built without a mortgage, as they didn't have PP?

    That means they had enough income/wealth to build a 500 sqm+ house in 2005 for cash?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,589 ✭✭✭standardg60


    I wouldn't buy that pre-planning meeting for a second. A quick glance at the PP for the existing house would have shown the sterilisation condition.

    Also very strange that the field wasn't sold through traditional channels (subject to PP). I would say the Murrays picked it up on the cheap knowing full well they were going to build on it regardless. They didn't require a mortgage so planning wasn't a vital element, or so they thought.

    The sense of entitlement that clearly comes across in the interview really explains their entire motivation.



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


    "Big brother having the last word? You can’t have us commoners doing what we like without box tickers getting involved. Anarchy would surely ensue."

    There have to be reasonable limits on development. Sometimes these limits can be too excessive, or not excessive enough. It's a tough balance to try and appease all aspects of everything, and those limits are regularly reviewed and shifted as and when required. It'll never be perfect and some will always disgaree or think those limits shouldn't apply to them or their specific case, but those limits are ultimately there for a reason.

    "Or just pig-ignorant cute-hoorism with ideas above their station."

    Close. "Pig-ignorant" implies uneducation, and that they were to some degree unaware of the potential outcome. It wasn't pig-ignorance, it was wilfull ignorance. They did not care, and thought they could just build away and then either rely on the seven-year enforcement rule if their build went undiscovered by the Council, or to try and rely on applying for retention permission and hope the Council see it as too much effort to force them to demolish it and instead grant retention. They knew this was always going to be a potential outcome.

    "Will we ever learn?"

    Let this be the lesson. To those who think they can just say F*ck You to the rules the rest of us have to live by. "We" don't have to learn sh*t. The Murrays though, have now hopefully learned a very costly lesson.



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


    That @Peregrinus is a smart one alright - “the most skilful, most devious, most cunning of them all" 😀



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




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


    I would argue it is no longer fit for habitation this morning based on the stripped out kitchen, so time for a charity to be named I guess.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,589 ✭✭✭standardg60


    She said they'd lived in London for a few years prior to building, so probably accumulated a fair bit of wealth.

    Wouldn't surprise me in the least they still have property there, and that is where she is now.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,011 ✭✭✭Dublin Calling


    ..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭adaminho


    Don't worry, I'm working on a pitch for a new reality TV series where Rose and Martina have to work together to evade capture! I'm leaning towards Mums on the Run as a working title😆



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,195 ✭✭✭techman1


    I think the real issue is that planning laws are never properly enforced in this country. Then people build without planning permission and then seek retention later. In most cases this is granted which leads people to believe they don't have to follow the laws and will get away with it.

    Also if the council enforcement officers had arrived at the start of construction to enforce the order it would have saved alot of grief for this couple . However when reported it can take months for the council to arrive on site by which time the construction is completed. Also it would put the frighteners on others hoping to get away with building without planning.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 445 ✭✭manatoo


    The Murrays will still own the site after the demolition.

    Any money on a super size mobile home showing up next? Or a "non permanent" log cabin?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 166 ✭✭Jelly Welly


    is there any livestream where we can see the smash-smash?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,145 ✭✭✭✭SuperBowserWorld


    You have to wonder how hard can it be for someone in the county council to drive out and stop construction early. It's not a difficult or expensive problem for even the most junior employee in the county council to do.

    It's one small flat county - right ?

    They could even have 3rd parties to do it. Same as they do with clamping vehicles.



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


    Realistically going to need a lot more than one person to actually stop construction when the person paying the trades tells them to keep going.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,647 ✭✭✭✭JupiterKid


    Delighted at this outcome of this case which has dragged on for far too long.

    Ireland is, depressingly, very poor at good land use planning, especially when it comes to unsustainable, vile one-off McMansions dotted around the countryside that simply would not be permitted in most other developed countries with proper planning enforcement.

    I hope that the demolition is shown online. Let this be a lesson to many others in this country with brass necks who think that the planning laws only apply to others and not themselves.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭adaminho


    You are relying on someone to contact the council to report it. Then they would have to get a court injunction to stop construction. As the Murrays have shown merely asking nicely won't get you anywhere.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 786 ✭✭✭feelings


    Will the couple be billed for the cost to demolish it? And the legal cost awarded against them?



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


    The issue is, how are the Council meant to know if construction is happening? This particular house is down a cul-de-sac, which means there's a good chance nobody from the Council were down it to know it was happening. If it wasn't reported, the Council simply may not have known about it.

    Even as most of us are driving round the place, once you go a mile or two outside your home and see someone building, you typically won't know if they have planning or not, and likely won't bother checking. Similarly, a Council operative who may be, say, going out to look at something to do with a road, see a house being built, and may not have any inclination as to whether it has planning or not.

    Even if someone does build without permission though, the Council will generally try to grant retention if it's something which could have been granted permission if it was applied for. This may involve some modifications to what was built to bring it in line with what would have been granted permission, but I've always found Councils in general will try to grant retention permission if and when they can. And that's likely what the Murrays were going to try and rely on.

    The trouble is, the Council could not grant retention in this case for a variety of reasons. But that's the risk the Murrays took when deciding to build without permission.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,145 ✭✭✭✭SuperBowserWorld


    There should be no court injunction involved. If you don't have planning permission you can't continue to build, and you get fined daily with ever increasing fines until you stop. The council has a list of people currently breaking the law on their web site stating how much they currently owe.

    A simple app should show all builds with planning permission, click on it to see the plans that were accepted. Anyone can check and report a build that does not have planning permission for what's being built.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,182 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    Surely not . There is no planning permission even now so that would have to rectified



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


    In the case of the two posters bet, planning was never in debate, just whether the house would remain standing and habitable.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,182 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    She said on the radio that with their family grown and gone they were downsizing now !



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,182 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    I get that but it can't go to charity unless they are granted it with pp.It can't be lived in without planning permission though so moot



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




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,182 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    Oh sorry completely misinterpreted that 🙏

    Thought it was in relation to Rise Murray saying it was a shame it was not being used for the councils housing use .

    Totally fudging the point .



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


    The house size was excessive for the family they did have. It was absolutely monstrous.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 18,182 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,195 ✭✭✭techman1


    This was obviously a contentious case and would have been reported like many others are. Farmers are famously uncompliant with planning laws and will build slatted sheds etc without planning hoping nobody will report them , when they are reported it can take months for council enforcement officers to arrive. The council people like an easy life, they don't tend to travel out to contentious sites unless they absolutely have to.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,434 ✭✭✭Jb1989


    Being demolished



Advertisement
Advertisement