Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

12467…32

Comments

  • #92
    maestroamado
    Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    2018na wrote: »
    Planning in Meath is a joke. Broke the Murrays hearts over a period when they legitimately applied a number of times albeit for a smaller dwelling. Around that time another builder had got retention for a massive mansion built in the wrong field and drastically bigger than any permits granted. Also this mansion is fully visible from the road whereas the Murray house is up a very quiet cul de sac. As regards knocking it what sort of a man he gonna bring machinery on site to actually knock it. Everyone is really busy and no one needs that sort of job along with the inevitable hassle it will bring the contractor. It’s also amazing it got to the stage of being totally finished without the planning authorities realizing something’s amiss no




    Wouldn't it be perfect for Asylum seekers and save knocking it down.
    Sorry i did not mean that to be reply/quote...


  • #93
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,576 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    MaryLouMacari wrote: »

    Send me on the planning reference number.

    Ah so they were shopped now....

    So you acknowledge they knew what they were at and did completely the wrong thing.
    ..gas stuff altogether.


  • #94
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,499 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    MaryLouMacari wrote: »
    Maybe for a law that wasn't being applied equally?

    If you and your neighbour were both parked on double yellow lines and you were the only one clamped, would you simply pay the fee with a smile and not want to know why the other car wasn't clamped?

    As I already asked, do we know why they were refused planning?

    I think someone has already stated that an even bigger, more prominent house was granted planning nearby.

    If they were turned down for planning the correct thing to do is appeal, not to fire ahead with a house double the size.

    You can view their application and refusal on the Coco planning website.


  • #95
    Darc19
    Registered Users Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭Darc19


    Would be a shame to knock it. It should be purchased by meath cc for €1 and used for the community. It would make an ideal home for people with disabilities.


    The Murrays put two fingers up to the Planning laws by building something twice the size as they originally wanted.

    It was a eff you, we'll ignore you and double the size.

    The land they purchased was sterilized from development and its near impossible to circumvent sterilization orders which are made for good reason.

    And I don't believe for one minute their appeals and apologies. They are game playing and will say anything hoping to get people to have pity.

    And there is no way demolition would cost €326,000. That again is asking a firm to give as high a price as possible.


  • #96
    Darc19
    Registered Users Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭Darc19


    MaryLouMacari wrote: »

    Send me on the planning reference number.

    Very easy to find a planning file from the persons name or the general area.

    But land was sterilized from development and a legal document was on file to that effect.

    They bought the land knowing it was agriculture land and a sterilisation order applied to it.

    They gambled, they lost, and then they stuck two fingers up to everyone

    Both the high court and the Supreme Court were damning of their actions

    https://www.irishlegal.com/article/supreme-court-navan-couple-must-demolish-house-built-without-planning-permission


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    nigeldaniel
    Registered Users Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭nigeldaniel


    There can be no reward for arrogance and blatant disregard for the law, as that, is a slippery slope we can not go on.
    I half know of a similar situation in Kerry years ago when a bin company built mega warehouses and sheds with no permission too. They sold up the company and set up shop as a hardware depot.
    Arrogance and belligerence are just sloppy acts of almost childish rebellion.
    When we are adults that just does not fly.
    It's a stone toss away from a chaos society.

    Dan.



  • #98
    sentient_6
    Registered Users Posts: 2,780 ✭✭✭sentient_6


    I haven't looked at the original planning application(s) but I would be curious if they had acquired the services of a qualified civil engineer? Who's remit should have been to design a house for them that they wanted but would also get planning? And also this process should have happened before going through with buying the land?!

    The original costs of this would be a fraction of what has happened since. A painful lesson learned and I have no sympathy.


  • #99
    micar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,876 ✭✭✭micar


    2018na wrote: »
    Planning in Meath is a joke. Broke the Murrays hearts over a period when they legitimately applied a number of times albeit for a smaller dwelling. Around that time another builder had got retention for a massive mansion built in the wrong field and drastically bigger than any permits granted. Also this mansion is fully visible from the road whereas the Murray house is up a very quiet cul de sac. As regards knocking it what sort of a man he gonna bring machinery on site to actually knock it. Everyone is really busy and no one needs that sort of job along with the inevitable hassle it will bring the contractor. It’s also amazing it got to the stage of being totally finished without the planning authorities realizing something’s amiss no

    Do you know the Murray's?

    Your post screams of this. As so, you are unable to offer an impartial opinion.

    They put in planning permission. Got declined.

    Went ahead and built a house twice the size as the one they had planning permission declined.

    Sure it's built now, may as well let it remain in place.

    Eh no.....

    I'll go in a knock it down for €300k.....no bother.

    The planning authorities don't go around and check that declined cases aren't proceeded with. One would expect that the result the declined planning permission is adhered to.

    We'll build it giving people the impression that permission was granted and no one will be the wiser.

    Allowing them to keep the house will give other carte blanche to do what ever they wish.......no point in planning laws then.


  • #100
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,569 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    I am no builder but 300k sounds way off. demolition is cheap.


  • #101
    CrankyHaus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭CrankyHaus


    If they were treated differently and unfairly by the Council then they could have judiciallly reviewed it's decision.

    The fact that they didn't, despite engaging in unsuccessful litigation up to the Supreme Court, illustrates that they weren't.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    StackSteevens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭StackSteevens


    2018na wrote: »

    It’s also amazing it got to the stage of being totally finished without the planning authorities realizing something’s amiss no

    It was built incredibly quickly, taking less than 8 months, according to this story:

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-30846774.html

    (It's possible that he had started to build, anticipating that he'd get PP, before the refusal was issued, so he pigheadely kept going.)


  • #103
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,785 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    I am no builder but 300k sounds way off. demolition is cheap.
    Without knowing the site, there could be expensive reinstatement costs e.g. if it was in an NHA.


  • #104
    bladespin
    Registered Users Posts: 7,332 ✭✭✭bladespin


    Widdensushi wrote: »
    Rubbish, we need rules or everyone can build what they want, I am not necessarily against that but if you have rules then the people who ignore them have to take down their properties or there will be a free for all. It's an injustice to everyone who applies for planning permission that this property is still standing.

    Agree but there lies the problem I think, Meath is one of the most difficult places to get planning afik they really seem to go out of their way to deny rather than engage, very discouraging, leading to the ‘feck them’ attitude.


  • #105
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 8,856 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    I think they're still playing "call my bluff" here:

    80 year old mother living with them
    Young family all living there
    A stupidly high 300K + quote to demolish the house

    If you can't afford to demolish the house though, what will actually happen here? Do the council evict them and demolish it themselves?

    Could they declare bankruptcy/personal insolvency and try and keep their "family home" that way? (Hardly likely considering the Supreme Court ordered its destruction)

    Do the council even have an opportunity to actually give planning permission now, considering the Supreme Court ruling?

    I'd normally be an advocate for common-sense solutions but in this case, I think they've treated planning laws with such contempt that there's no way back here. Zero sympathy from me. Get them out, raise the house to the ground and send them the bill.


  • #106
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users Posts: 8,454 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    MaryLouMacari wrote: »
    Really depends on why they were turned down and what else was being granted around them?

    There could be a replica of the Taj Mahal built next to them after going through the planning process and it wouldn’t matter. If they are so certain there is an issue with the planning process they could take their own case to the high could and seek a judicial review of their application.


  • #107
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users Posts: 8,454 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    MaryLouMacari wrote: »
    Maybe for a law that wasn't being applied equally?

    If you and your neighbour were both parked on double yellow lines and you were the only one clamped, would you simply pay the fee with a smile and not want to know why the other car wasn't clamped?

    As I already asked, do we know why they were refused planning?

    I think someone has already stated that an even bigger, more prominent house was granted planning nearby.

    Cars don’t get clamped for parking on double yellow lines. They get fined.

    Out of interest, if you and your neighbour were illegally parked and they received a fine and you didn’t would you pay their fine for them? Or half of it?
    Or would you demand that you also get a fine?


  • #108
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users Posts: 8,454 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    I am no builder but 300k sounds way off. demolition is cheap.



    A similar sized house near me was demolished recently at a cost of 60K.


  • #109
    MaryLouMacari
    Registered Users Posts: 32 ✭MaryLouMacari


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    Cars don’t get clamped for parking on double yellow lines. They get fined.

    Out of interest, if you and your neighbour were illegally parked and they received a fine and you didn’t would you pay their fine for them? Or half of it?
    Or would you demand that you also get a fine?

    Stop acting the eejit now, Larry. I nearly choked on my full Irish after reading your post.

    If you want to be so silly about it I never mentioned cars getting clamped, I said 'if you were clamped'.


  • #110
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users Posts: 8,454 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    MaryLouMacari wrote: »
    Stop acting the eejit now, Larry. I nearly choked on my full Irish after reading your post.

    If you want to be so silly about it I never mentioned cars getting clamped, I said 'if you were clamped'.

    People don’t get clamped, even if they are illegally parked.


  • #111
    MaryLouMacari
    Registered Users Posts: 32 ✭MaryLouMacari


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    People don’t get clamped, even if they are illegally parked.


    I'm sure they'd make an exception for you.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Rezident
    Registered Users Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭Rezident


    StackSteevens wrote: »
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/council-takes-legal-advice-as-deadline-to-demolish-co-meath-house-passes-1.3532240

    So then:

    June 2006 - Meath County Council refused planning permission.

    March 2007 Meath County Council informed that a large house had been built on the lands.

    May 2007 - Retention permission refused on the five-bedroomed property.

    Nov 2008 - Compromise offer by the Murrays to demolish part of the 588 sq m home is rejected by planners.

    July 2010 - High Court orders the house be demolished and given two years to comply. The case is appealed to the Supreme Court

    May 2017 - The Supreme Court upholds the original High Court decision and orders the Murrays to demolish their home within 12 months.

    June 2018 - having completely ignored the Supreme Court order, the Murrays issue a plea to Meath County Councillors to be allowed to continue waving their two fingers at Ireland's Planning Laws and the Supreme Court.

    Since then, there has been silence.

    Does anyone know what the latest is, please?

    Because, if they are still getting away with this, then the Irish Supreme Court must be regarded as an international laughing stock.


    The whole Irish legal system is a joke, my wife has broken our Court Order nine times but a judge does not want to send a mother with young kids to jail so the law is a bit of a joke in Ireland. Clearly they do not want to demolish a 'family home' here so you can just break the law and get away with it in Ireland. Solicitors know this because there is little credible threat of enforcement so they advise their clients to do as they please.


    And if they are at either end of the rich or poor spectrum, they generally get away with it in Ireland.


  • #113
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    StackSteevens wrote: »
    OK. So we have a Supreme Court directive that this illegal development should be demolished within 12 months of its judgement being published.

    Two years later, it appears that this hasn't happened, which is a clear breach of the Supreme Court's directive/instruction or whatever the correct term is.

    Does this not mean that someone - either Meath County Council which took the original case or the lawbreakers (or both) - is/are in contempt of court?

    How can a concerned citizen take steps to inform the Court that a State Agency is treating its directive with complete contempt?

    Can the CEO of Meath County Council be prosecuted for failing to carry out a Supreme Court directive?

    Maybe the new Minister for Justice - who, coincidentally is a Meath TD - could display her respect for the Supreme Court by insisting that its directive be implemented immediately.

    So, to want to take action against the people who took the court case and won?

    The order of the court is that the people that built it, remove it. Not a third party.


  • #114
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Tiger20 wrote: »
    In other countries, like UK, Belguim, Spain, your bins, street cleaning, school books etc are included

    In addition to Belgium, I can't tell you that you are wrong about Spain.

    Bins: In Spain to have 2 options depending on location. Your bins are collected outside like in Ireland by a private company that you pay or your bins are charged by the council and you need to bring your bins to the local green / brown / black bins on the street. Where my family lives, it's council and the bins are approx 50 meters away so the bins get dropped as you go about your business most days. They sometimes overflow, etc and smell.

    Street cleaning is based on local taxes, so is Ireland.

    School books: if you qualify for a grant they are free. You need to earn under 1000 pet month to qualify. My kids books are costing me 300 this year.

    I also pay a water charge which has been abandoned in Ireland and my electricity is more expensive but yet limited to a Max usage of 3.3kw. no electric showers in Spain!

    So only the UK left. I never lived there so won't comment.


  • #115
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Question for those that might know, as the property is illegal. How is it registered for public services and can it be left in a will?


  • #116
    MaryLouMacari
    Registered Users Posts: 32 ✭MaryLouMacari


    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/partly-built-citywest-centre-to-be-demolished-1.1009584


  • #117
    StackSteevens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭StackSteevens


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »

    So, to want to take action against the people who took the court case and won?

    The order of the court is that the people that built it, remove it. Not a third party.

    Did you happen to spot the question marks that I inserted at the end of the relevant sentences in my post that you quoted?

    In a nutshell, I want the Supreme Court's verdict to be enforced and I don't really care whether this is done by the guilty party or by the ratepayer and taxpayer-funded Body that won the case in the Supreme Court but doesn't appear to want to see the judgement enforced.

    The law-abiding ratepayers of Meath deserve more from their paid Council employees.


  • #118
    whisky_galore
    Registered Users Posts: 15,720 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    It's absolutely rotten looking. Far too many of those tasteless "mansions" around the country that should never have been allowed have the sod turned on them.

    If I didn't know it was a dwelling house, I would have assumed it was some kind of failed Celtic Tiger hotel/direct provision centre. An architectural turd.


  • #119
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users Posts: 8,454 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Question for those that might know, as the property is illegal. How is it registered for public services and can it be left in a will?

    Probably not insured either


  • #120
    Varik
    Registered Users Posts: 12,480 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    No reason for them to comply.

    They'd be out the cost of demolishing and the cost to rehome themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    I am no builder but 300k sounds way off. demolition is cheap.

    Yeah, couple of lads with lump hammers and then you can just chuck all the rubble and material in a hedge or something.............


Advertisement