Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

T-Maxx · 23-03-2026 11:35AM

Delighted for the Murrays. 😁

magicbastarder · 23-03-2026 01:18PM

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/housing-planning/2026/03/23/i-dont-envisage-lying-in-front-of-bulldozers-man-wants-reprieve-for-300000-extension/

paywalled. but

"Farrelly did not seek planning permission for the development, which he says cost about €300,000, as he believed it to be exempt."

"Now retired, Farrelly had a number of different companies, providing business, accounting and agricultural consultancy services, he says."

so a supposedly successful businessman who provided consultancy services managed to build a large two storey extension without either determining first that it was exempt, or no-one actually saying to him at any point that it wasn't?

i have a bridge i would like to sell him.

sydthebeat · 23-03-2026 01:20PM

non paywalled version

https://archive.ph/O3cgu

He claims he was told by a council official during multiple inspections throughout the works that it was an exempted development

i find that VERY hard to believe

that a council official would say that without any reason and
there is no reason for a council official to inspect these works on multiple occasions

GalwayGaz · 23-03-2026 01:36PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124331402#Comment_124331402

Not in its sixth year and extensively covered in the Indo, the case of the Murphys and their two unauthorized sheds ("bigger than many rural houses") in Mount Plunkett, Roscommon is another one worth watching.

Penn · 23-03-2026 01:38PM

Re: Sutton extension

Took a quick look at the planning file. Had to laugh at this bit from one of the numerous objections:

"His extension has been deemed illegal by An Board Pleanala and Fingal County Council

how much more taxpayers’ money is going to be spent on this ???

My mind boggles

Is no one going to follow their own rules JESUS"

Also should be noted his application for retention (as well as permission to construct a garage in the front/side of his garden…. read the f*cking room, lad…) was then withdrawn before a decision made.

magicbastarder · 23-03-2026 01:41PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124334503#Comment_124334503

there is no reason for a council official to inspect these works on multiple occasions

yeah, if he never needed to inform the council that construction work was underway, how would they have known to send someone out?

Princess Calla · 23-03-2026 01:55PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124334498#Comment_124334498

Well someone already sold him the big feckin windows 😂 😂

Mellor · 23-03-2026 02:23PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124334535#Comment_124334535

I assume that is this one;

I live in Galway and have a pair of horrible Dub weekend neighbours who built two large house-sized structures on the land next time mine without planning permission.
As land in question is not supposed to be built on, I reported them to the local council.
Having had a warning letter and enforcement notices, they applied for retention and lost before quicly issuing and withdrawing a Bord Na Pleanala appeal – probably because it bore no relation to their retention app.
The council has now advised me they will be taken to court.
What I need to know is what might happen next?

Kaisr Sose · 23-03-2026 02:44PM

What I need to know is what might happen next?

...bulldozers arrive but hopefully not after over a decade of legal proceedings.

I just wonder how many other cases are pending. Does the issue of build first and then apply for retention encourage people to chance it? I always thought it was an expensive gamble to build anything without planning permission.

Penn · 23-03-2026 02:51PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124334712#Comment_124334712

It is an expensive gamble. A lot of the time, planners will permit retention if whatever was built is reasonable, close to what could have been granted planning, or with conditions that they're to undertake whatever alterations are required to bring it closer to something which could have got planning permission.

In the case of the Murrays and several others though, knowing they would never get planning, they just tried to brute force it and build whatever they wanted anyway, in the hopes they might be able to force the Council to permit it anyway.

That's the gamble. If you're wrong (which you most likely will be because Councils don't want to set precedents which may encourage others to do the same thing using this case as a precedent), it's all on you.

It's why the Murrays saying they made a mistake 20 years ago simply doesn't wash. They didn't make a mistake, they made a choice. They knowingly made the choice to take that gamble and that risk. The fact they built twice as big as they were refused permission for really highlights that.

muffler · 23-03-2026 02:51PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124334503#Comment_124334503

Just on the point of multiple inspections I know that the planners here in Donegal have to take up to date photgraphs of unauthorised structures prior to court appearances. No idea if thats the case throughout the country but that might explain why there were a few official visits.

Seth Brundle · 23-03-2026 02:51PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124334712#Comment_124334712

On that note, is there an actual financial deterrent to building without permission? Surely, to use the Murrays as an example, they had spent so much on their property that it would be cheaper to fight it (kind of like sunken cost fallacy) - is there any kind of fine for building without permission and for retention being refused by the various agencies/courts?
Should there be or if not, why not?

EagererBeaver · 23-03-2026 03:05PM

Six (!) times as big in the case of the Murrays.

Not only did they choose to take the risk, they made it a far, far bigger one.

Penn · 23-03-2026 03:08PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124334738#Comment_124334738

There are financial penalties set out in the Planning & Development Act. However the fines aren't really that big, they're more coercive to get the owner to engage with the Council and either regularise the development through the planning process if possible, or remove the structure.

The financial deterrent to building without permission is really just the cost of either making whatever alterations might be required by the Council to bring it in line with planning, or the cost of demolition if refused permission/retention.

sydthebeat · 23-03-2026 03:20PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124334737#Comment_124334737

perhaps, but if they are subject of a warning letter and subsequent enforcement action, then the person going taking photos is hardly telling the guy that what he has built is exempt.

a quick google shows that he applied for a section 5 in 2007 which determined that the conservatory was development and not exempted development.

two further applications were made in october last year, with the first one invalidated and the second one withdrawn.

so since 2007 this guy has know what he has required planning permission and he didnt nothing about it, even after he was served with enforcement action in 2020

i can see the high court giving him short shrift when he didnt even engage with the planning system despite having decades to do so.

Kaisr Sose · 23-03-2026 03:22PM

On that note, is there an actual financial deterrent to building without permission?

Its more expensive to apply for retention. I am it sure what the loading is. Even if it's double, it's not sufficient deterrent. It should be a significant sum of money to encourage seeking permission in the 1st instance. Alternatively, just abolish the retention process so anything that's built must have permission and its foundations must be inspected to ensure they are the size and position stated in the application.

On that latter point, I am aware of a neighbour dispute where foundations over sail the boundary wall, where they were submitted to be set back as per wishes of the neighbour. This is now a full on boundary dispute between both with the council washing their hands of it. Its up to the affected neighbour to take a court case at considerable cost, which they don't have. Meanwhile, the extension is not compliant with planning permission and is also let out as a separate dwelling, contrary to planning permission (which clearly stated it could not be let out). Council don't want to know, but it is their remit to seek compliance with granted permission.

Planning enforcement is a joke in this country, and that is why people try it on. It will only get worse when/if the planning rules are further relaxed to allow garden rooms without pp.

Kaisr Sose · 23-03-2026 03:35PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124334738#Comment_124334738

I think the retention fee is 3 times the cost but for a domestic extension or house it's still small money and not sufficient deterrent. It should be a significant sum of money to encourage seeking permission in the 1st instance, something like €5,000 for a basic extension and 10,000 upwards for a house, plus X per m² of the planned building. The retention avenue seems to be just an avenue to gerrymander permission for something that might never have been allowed to be built if initial permission was sought.

Penn · 23-03-2026 03:40PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124334832#Comment_124334832

Agreed. Google Earth also shows that the construction took place between 2018 and 2020, so he didn't proceed with the works after being told it wouldn't be exempted development and would require planning (which he probably knew would likely be refused), then just proceeded to build it years later anyway.

Penn · 23-03-2026 03:55PM

The Murrays hearing is on-going, but some details coming out;

They were arrested upon entry due to the warrant for their arrest.

Two of the companies involved in the demolition/waste removal/security have received threatening phone calls.

The Council are seeking to have the arrests lifted on the foot of the house being made vacant and demolition works undertaken, and also seeking to have the Murrays stop pursuing "further proliferation of issues and applications” and “media propaganda”"

The Murrays solicitor says his clients denied contempt but were reluctant to give evidence because that could compromise other issues they wanted to raise, including their contention that they had not breached the undertakings. He asked the judge to read a lengthy affidavit in which the couple denied any breach of the undertakings.

https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2026/03/23/couple-at-centre-of-co-meath-house-demolition-case-appear-at-high-court/

(I bypassed paywall by opening in incognito window)

muffler · 23-03-2026 04:08PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124334832#Comment_124334832

I agree totally that a planner would not have told the guy that his development was exempt. I was merely pointing out a possible reason for "mutiple inspections"

hoodie6029 · 23-03-2026 04:44PM

Threats made to the contractors and workers on site? Well, this is Bohermeen afterall, you’d nearly expect that when you’re building a house legitimately in that neck of the woods!

DmanDmythDledge · 23-03-2026 05:03PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124334498#Comment_124334498

Seems like bringing in family issues as a tactical move. If his son needed somewhere to live and he had €300k to spend, maybe he should have given it to his son.

Lamenting the legal fees as well even though he chose to challenge it. And saying he's never commited a crime even though he's in contempt of court?

DmanDmythDledge · 23-03-2026 05:04PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124334944#Comment_124334944

Denying contempt is outrageous. Seems fairly black and white that they are in contempt, plus openly admitting in the media they were purposely evading arrest.

Penn · 23-03-2026 05:21PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124335118#Comment_124335118

I'm guessing their excuse for not vacating the property will be that they were still bringing forward new applications/appeals, and therefore believe the order to vacate should have been paused.

Now, you'd think if that was their reasoning that they would have checked and confirmed that, but that doesn't seem to be something they've ever cared about.

pjohnson · 23-03-2026 05:37PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124335162#Comment_124335162

I mean they built a bigger house after failing to get permission for a smaller one. They dont seem to care to check anything....or use common sense.

Dr.Tom · 23-03-2026 06:00PM

In fairness it was some monstrosity of a house for a plumber to be able to build if we are to believe it was done without a mortgage.

Was he a big contractor does anyone know?

hoodie6029 · 23-03-2026 06:00PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124335113#Comment_124335113

He’s just a normal man, he says. Sure who amongst us can’t say we weren’t done for speeding multiple times and ‘maybe’ dangerous driving. Us normies have been in front of the courts so often, it’s hard to keep track…..

spacetweek · 23-03-2026 08:39PM

I’ve been following the Navan house story for some time in amazement. Are we supposed to feel sorry for them? The signalling from the Irish Times coverage strongly suggests that we are. They fawned all over the family and reported on how upset the neighbours were that they were losing a fine family as neighbours . Presumably we’re meant to see the council as evil government overreach.

Seth Brundle · 23-03-2026 09:18PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124335639#Comment_124335639

It is very similar to the story last year about the family who got insulation wrap on their house and who were told rhat they needed PP or would face enforcementaction plus fines of up to 5k. After they were refused retention permission having submitted a childs drawing, they didn't try and work with the local authority but instead went to the media with a bullsh1t sob story and the media lapped up their bullsh1t!

Penn · 23-03-2026 10:26PM

Exactly. They dragged it through every court to the point the only court left where they might get a win is the court of public opinion. The Murrays know the Council aren't going to be able to comment on on-going legal matters, and they know they can boil things down to emotive nonsense like "My kids were dragged out of the house by masked men in balaclavas" and "I'm going to be arrested just for sleeping in my bed".

The media are, as per usual, more interested in the personal side of things than actual facts; reporting the Murrays' comments and "opinions of locals" with minimal factual counterpoints.

Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

Comments