Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

The news papers are like Ryan Tubridy doing the toy show, they love a sob story $$$$

Who can forget year wan in Tallaght Garda Station, with the kids 'asleep' on the seats in their school uniforms in the middle of August.

And not one professional journo questioning the school uhiforms in the school holidays

That doesn't make sense in this context though. Planners arriving to document unauthorised development, is confirmatino that it is unauthorised.
The guy in Sutton is claiming that the planners told him it was exempt development, when they were there to inspect. Exempt development doesn't trigger an inspection, even further the council isn't even alerted that it's happening. He's simply waffling.

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.

This isn't the solution that you think it. Anything that is built requiring planning IS supposed to be have permission currently.
Retention isn't pathway that people can openly choose. It's a means to legalise unauthorised development.

Inspection foundations is no going to solve much. The Murray's house would have still been built, the guy who builds hight, still builds higher, the "shed" is still turned into a flat etc.

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.

That makes perfect sense. It has nothing to do with planning or the council.
Expecting planning dept's to settle civil property disputes is a bit odd. You wouldn't do that in any other property dispute.

What I mean by inspecting foundations is to confirm their position on the site and the size (m²).

In the example I referred to, had the foundations been dug where they were on the drawings, and inspected to ensure they were, there would be no problem/no boundary issues. Not set back from the boundary and undersailing is non-compliant with permission received, and should be a council issue. Again, if they were inspected and they then made them bigger or altered them, it would be easy to issue enforcement proceedings. The light touch regulation or almost self-certification leads to examples like I quoted. I would not expect the council to become involved in routine boundary disputes, but where one arrises following an approved build, and with the role to approve/regulate a s enforce planning, they should be.

Wow the house that sprung up incredibly quickly, without planning, also decided to cut corners in construction quality and standards. I for one am shocked.

Planning permission doesn't includes the size or of foundations. Nor do the area of foundations equal the area of the building.

Boundary disputes are a civil matter not a planning matter. It's entirely possible, and even common, to build a wall right up or even centre on a boundary - with a foundation that over sails the boundary, it's not an obstruction to planning, it simply needs to be agreed between parties. It's not for the council to check that neighbours have spoken to each other.

I understand, if the case you mention, it was build in a different location to the plans. A inspection would have caught that, but it's kind of a niche cases.
And even then its not to say the new location is fundamental objectionable. Council would only have to grant retention (if even required) and it falls back to being purely a civil matter.

It would be great if planning, or some other process could check all of these things. But there would obviously be costs associated

I'm really glad to see your post. I've only come to this story late, but I've read the articles in the Irish Times as well, and they all came across as incredible sympathetic to the Murrays - "How their dream home became a nightmare" - and so on. As I was reading them, I thought I was missing something, because it didn't make sense why the IT seemed to be very much on their side. I'm no expert on planning, but my understanding is: the Murrays were denied planning permission for a house, but went ahead and built it anyway, and a bigger house too. They are not the victims in this. I'm pleased I'm not the only baffled by the IT taking the Murray's side.

And by the way, if anyone from the IT is reading this, the Murray's dream home only became a nightmare because they made it one.

Maybe that's something that should be looked at for the future.

It would make sense to me that a contractor would have to see the planning permission before starting work, and if they do work without it, they should also be in trouble.

How much should the builder charge for the cost of checking the planning?

And how much extra Insurance will they need against liability if they missed something that wasn’t in the planning permission?

All costs to honest people trying to build anything.

The Murrays built the house.
Whether directly ot indirectly doesn't change their responsibility.

Definitely not. The contractor acts on the owners instruction. Same who ever drew up the plans (though I suspect that was Mr Murrary)
Allowing the contractor to be responsible means the owners could blame the contractor for not endure plannning was in place.