Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

The bulider would have to employ an architecht to check the permission was for what they're building, checking planning isn't their business really, at least not at that level, bear in mind what went on with the original plans here.

When you leave your car with the local mechanic for a bit of work do you expect him to check that it has tax, insurance and a NCT cert?

And where did I say anything different? As I previously stated I was offering up one example of where multiple visits by planners could and does happen. I have no idea if this was applicable to the Sutton case or not.

I dont think builders should be legally responsible for whats built in terms of planning permission. But it wouldnt be particulary onerous that a law be in place that all builders must inform the Council of what they're building, where it is, how many sq meters it is,etc. After that if the Council cant match it up to their own system of permissions and if no match then send an inspector out to the site to see if unauthorised development is about to commence. Prevention is better than cure after all and through the Murray case we now know the cure took two decades to arrive costing the taxpayer a small fortune in legal fees. Its a sub optimal situation.

Like take the unauthorised development at Kippure Village in Wicklow. Some builder built 64 houses that didnt have planning permission. Had he been legally obliged to let the Council know what he was about to build they would have been down to inspect it. But instead what we have is the 64 houses built and years of legal wrangling ahead. The planning & building control systems need to be reformed so it doesnt even get that far.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

listening to C103 the other day, cork local radio for those who don’t know. Loads of sympathy for the Murray’s from listeners and even talk of “sure even the brits wouldn’t have done that back in the day”

Where did I mentioned anything about money? Everytihng costs monry, but that has nothing to do with what I said about responsibility.

Maybe there's a number on it. The builder verifies the number with the council. All could be done in two minutes.

That 2 minute check would prove there was a planning permission. That doesn't confirm that the house on the tender or construction drawings is in accordance with the plans. Confirming that takes more time, and usually a professional opinion.

But the point is that the owner is responsible for their property. In that case the Murrays are 100% at fault. Allowing them to say the builder should have checked, gets them off the hook - especially as that company likely no longer exists.

There is already a system in place. A dwelling house requires the owner to submit a Commencement Notice (CN) to Councils Building Control Management System (BCMS).

Council will only validate the CN if (amongst other details), a builder has been assigned and also a final planning grant reference is provided. Building a house cannot legally start until this is in place.

Also, at present there is also no provision for Council to be able to retrospectively validate a CN if work has already started.

The Guidelines are a joke tbh. I work on rural house planning and you can date housing as you drive around the country based on designs in favour at any given time..... that to me is the definition of bad planning.

Then you have the opinions of individual planners. What's perfectly acceptable to one is a non runner for the next.

Then when you come to opinion re whether the design can be accommodated on the landscape, this again varies by who you know and the timing of the application. If the application is up for decision in run up to general election, there will be no further information request if the basics have been covered. Coming towards end of any development plan, the silly requests seem to disappear too.

If you know a councillor, mountains can be moved overnight.

What people don't realise about building in rural ireland is that it is the funding side that is for the most part controlling planning compliance. Basically, if people need to borrow, they must have permission and follow it very closely to enable engineer to sign off and allow mortgage money to flow. If you happen to have your own money, that restriction is gone and the chances of Planning Enforcement small..... except where you take the absolute piss like this couple.

How did the Murrays evade this system?

A "Hi, I've commenced on planning I dont have" notice would be unusual!