Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

StackSteevens · 13-07-2020 2:35pm #1

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.

ELM327 · 13-07-2020 3:15pm

It's actually quite a nice house. Why werent' they given permission? Meath Co Co can be knobs at the best of times.

Vicxas · 13-07-2020 5:00pm

Lovely house, and yes MCC can be unbearable arseholes the best of times but its pure Celtic Tiger arrogance from the Murrays.

partyguinness · 13-07-2020 5:04pm

StackSteevens wrote: »

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

Why? The Supreme Court juustices do not jump into JCBs and have a field trip to Meath.

It is now for the Council take enforcement proceedings and ask the Court to start penalising the owners for contempt of court.

Like all Councils they generally do not have to the balls or stomach for the fight. They prefer the quiet life them planners- just let it sit on some pencil pusher's desk for the next 20 years.

Widdensushi · 13-07-2020 5:13pm

They were refused permission to build a 300 square meter house so they built a 600 square meter one without permission, knock it down I am afraid, you shouldn't be rewarded for that carry on, I would love to put up a shed in my back yard but it would need to be over the size that doesn't require planning so I will wait till I have the funds to look at getting planning etc.

cameramonkey · 13-07-2020 5:19pm

Horrible looking monstrosity, tough on them but I just went through the expense and pain of a planning application and an objection to ANP , I don't see why these people should be allowed to do as they please when everyone else has to go through a legal planning route. Should be knocked.

StackSteevens · 13-07-2020 5:38pm

partyguinness wrote: »

It is now for the Council take enforcement proceedings and ask the Court to start penalising the owners for contempt of court.

Is that the current situation, more than 3 years after the Supreme Court verdict, or are you speculating?

As an aside I wonder whether the shameless law breakers have ever paid Property Tax on their illegally built residence.

.

sameoldname · 13-07-2020 5:45pm

StackSteevens wrote: »

As an aside I wonder whether the shameless law breakers have ever paid Property Tax on their illegally built residence.

I'd imagine the property is valued at €0 as they'd never be able to sell it.

bmc58 · 13-07-2020 5:48pm

Vicxas wrote: »

Lovely house, and yes MCC can be unbearable arseholes the best of times but its pure Celtic Tiger arrogance from the Murrays.

Who are "the Murrays"?

StackSteevens · 13-07-2020 5:50pm

bmc58 wrote: »

Who are "the Murrays"?

A pure shot in the dark here, but I suspect that they may be the people referred to in the Opening Post.

Ginger83 · 13-07-2020 6:13pm

14 years........ some law

Odelay · 13-07-2020 7:04pm

"The couple bought the site in 2006, and applied for permission to build a 283sq m dormer bungalow. That was refused. However, the Murrays went on to build a much larger 588sq m house."

Christ there must be some money in plumbing..

And the house is not nice, it is a monstrosity.

partyguinness · 13-07-2020 7:08pm

Doesnt matter how great the house is. It is still out in back arse Meath.

bmc58 · 13-07-2020 7:27pm

StackSteevens wrote: »

A pure shot in the dark here, but I suspect that they may be the people referred to in the Opening Post.

Very smart,but I was looking for a little more info than that.

Ginger83 · 13-07-2020 10:16pm

partyguinness wrote: »

Doesnt matter how great the house is. It is still out in back arse Meath.

I suppose it is a matter of opinion what people see as a good location. Personally i think Dublin is a kip but some think that there is nothing outside the M50 except Turkey for the holliers

ELM327 · 14-07-2020 9:27am

partyguinness wrote: »

Doesnt matter how great the house is. It is still out in back arse Meath.

If you're looking for a garden filled with grass rather than junkies, Meath is great.

StackSteevens · 14-07-2020 11:21am

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.

Homer · 15-07-2020 9:19am

Zero sympathy for people like this. They knew 100% what they were doing and hopefully will now reap what they sowed.

maestroamado · 15-07-2020 9:24am

Who is paying legal fees, legal aid?

CrabRevolution · 20-07-2020 2:50pm

I remember reading about this case in the Meath Chronicle and scouring the article looking for what their case or excuse would be. They didn't even try to come up with a plausible reason, just "We made a little mistake" and "the council want to demolish our house and make us homeless"

theunforgiven · 23-07-2020 9:15am

Could this set a precedent for people doing similar and then trying to ride out the storm knowing that MCC don't have balls to follow through??

StupidLikeAFox · 23-07-2020 10:02am

Such a waste to build that house to have it knocked down. Not that I think they should get to live in it either after their carry on - are they constantly looking over their shoulder I wonder now and expecting the knock on the door at any time.

I also suppose that they don't have a mortgage on this - surely the bank wouldn't lend money unless the legalities were all in order?

Ultima Thule · 23-07-2020 10:08am

I can imagine they got verbal assurances from someone in the council that the process would be followed but not enforced.

The next people to try it will be the ones that get enforcement.

Bullocks · 23-07-2020 10:09am

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Such a waste to build that house to have it knocked down. Not that I think they should get to live in it either after their carry on - are they constantly looking over their shoulder I wonder now and expecting the knock on the door at any time.

I also suppose that they don't have a mortgage on this - surely the bank wouldn't lend money unless the legalities were all in order?

Be some mess if they had a mortgage and had to knock it . Nothing would surprise me with regards to the banks lending for dodgy property back in 2006/07 though

StupidLikeAFox · 23-07-2020 10:21am

Just found this letter they wrote to councillors as a last ditch attempt to save the home. They are now faced with a 300k demolition cost. Their new proposal is that if the council just let it go then the Murrays will keep the house, will pay off all legal costs and that will be their punishment. However if they follow through on the court order the council are making 6 people homeless and it will cost the council €500k in legal fees + demolition costs

https://www.meathchronicle.ie/2018/06/05/letter-couple-appeal-to-meath-councillors-to-help-stop-demolition-order/

Hard to have any sympathy for these people though - they applied three times for planning permission, they didn't even appeal the last one and went ahead and built a house bigger than any planner had seen.

boogerballs · 23-07-2020 10:26am

theunforgiven wrote: »

Could this set a precedent for people doing similar and then trying to ride out the storm knowing that MCC don't have balls to follow through??

Given that Irish law is based on Common Law where cases are judged against precedents could this open a can of worms for the council. If these get away with it what is to stop anyone in Meath with a site just throwing up a house.

The baffling thing about the house that they built is that it doesnt even match any of the surrounding houses, it is a monster of a house compared to the others beside it. One of the requirements of the Meath CoCo Local Needs planning permission is that the house has to be of a similar type so it doesnt look too out of place. These guys ignored every single requirement but still the house is standing 15 years later.

John_Rambo · 23-07-2020 10:37am

Jesus, the hack of it. Were they trying to disguise it as an American retirement home?

boogerballs · 23-07-2020 10:39am

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Just found this letter they wrote to councillors as a last ditch attempt to save the home. They are now faced with a 300k demolition cost. Their new proposal is that if the council just let it go then the Murrays will keep the house, will pay off all legal costs and that will be their punishment. However if they follow through on the court order the council are making 6 people homeless and it will cost the council €500k in legal fees + demolition costs

https://www.meathchronicle.ie/2018/06/05/letter-couple-appeal-to-meath-councillors-to-help-stop-demolition-order/

Hard to have any sympathy for these people though - they applied three times for planning permission, they didn't even appeal the last one and went ahead and built a house bigger than any planner had seen.

They start the letter by saying that the land was in a highly sought after location and they had to pay over the odds pre-auction to secure it, then when trying to justify the reason for them to keep it they say its not in a prominent location.... can't be both.

What they are essentially asking is how much will it cost for them to stay and they'll pay that amount. While at the same time saying they can't afford the demolition. Pure chancers.

El Tarangu · 23-07-2020 10:59am

In an instance such as this, would the architect or the builder be in trouble for going ahead and building it anyway when there was no planning in place, or is this the sole responsibility of the owner?

Kamu · 23-07-2020 11:00am

Just a quick question.

I know these people are chancers, but let's say they actually couldn't afford to demolish the house.

What would happen then, would they be legally required to get a loan for the cost?

Would the council have to go ahead and do it and waste all that money? Or would they take the people to court again for the costs?

John_Rambo · 23-07-2020 11:13am

El Tarangu wrote: »

In an instance such as this, would the architect or the builder be in trouble for going ahead and building it anyway when there was no planning in place, or is this the sole responsibility of the owner?

I seriously doubt an architect was engaged for this building!

cute geoge · 23-07-2020 12:49pm

There was a lad not far from here who built a small bungalow on his site with no p.p. which already had a few small sheds .This was in arse whole of nowhere forestry all around it and K.c.c. rightly or wrongly made him knock it .

Dickie10 · 31-07-2020 10:34pm

what about log cabins? there everywhere now without planning

bladespin · 01-08-2020 10:04am

Dickie10 wrote: »

what about log cabins? there everywhere now without planning

A lot are classed as temporary structures.

boombang · 01-08-2020 10:16am

I would make them take it down themselves with lump hammers.

runawaybishop · 01-08-2020 10:25am

bladespin wrote: »

A lot are classed as temporary structures.

No they are not, we don't have exemptions for temporary structures. If someone lives in them they are in breech of planning

bladespin · 01-08-2020 10:56am

runawaybishop wrote: »

No they are not, we don't have exemptions for temporary structures. If someone lives in them they are in breech of planning

Not fixed to ground so temporary, also depends on where you locate them.

runawaybishop · 01-08-2020 11:36am

bladespin wrote: »

Not fixed to ground so temporary, also depends on where you locate them.

No, anything you live in and is connected to services needs planning. Just because it isn't fixed to the ground doesn't mean it is exempt. You may be thinking of the UK, which has different requirements.

Log cabins, fixed or not, require planning if you live in them. Otherwise they are a shed.

bladespin · 01-08-2020 11:50am

runawaybishop wrote: »

No, anything you live in and is connected to services needs planning. Just because it isn't fixed to the ground doesn't mean it is exempt. You may be thinking of the UK, which has different requirements.

Log cabins, fixed or not, require planning if you live in them. Otherwise they are a shed.

Think you should knock in and tell them so

.

Not thinking about any requirements just the rubbish I’ve gotten from sales etc, there are plenty who want to and will believe anything, very little being done just reinforces the theory

2018na · 01-08-2020 5:53pm

boombang wrote: »

I would make them take it down themselves with lump hammers.

You actually wouldn’t. If you knew the chap that owns this house it’s gonna take the Irish army to go in to knock it. Even then they better ask him nicely ðŸ˜ðŸ˜

bladespin · 01-08-2020 6:32pm

2018na wrote: »

You actually wouldn’t. If you knew the chap that owns this house it’s gonna take the Irish army to go in to knock it. Even then they better ask him nicely ðŸ˜ðŸ˜

Can you own a house that has a demolition order??? The site maybe, would be saving a fortune on property tax though.

um7y1h83ge06nx · 01-08-2020 6:50pm

It can only be arrogance or dodginess at play here. I've seen people chance things with sheds and extension, seeking retention later but this is something else altogether.

I couldn't imagine taking a chance pumping huge sums of money into construction when you know full well that money and effort could be for nothing if it has to be knocked.

Needless to say the house is worth fcuk all on the open market.

Ikozma · 01-08-2020 6:53pm

Should be made knock it themselves

StackSteevens · 01-08-2020 7:05pm

2018na wrote: »

If you knew the chap that owns this house it’s gonna take the Irish army to go in to knock it. Even then they better ask him nicely

So because he's a hard man he's allowed to flout the law with impunity?

Jokeshop country when both a County Manager and some self-important cowboy plumber can both pull down their trousers and wriggle their spotty backsides at the highest Court in the land without fear of any sanction whatsoever being applied to them.

If that fat clown from Malahide who is Minister for Housing had any cojones then he'd give the County Manager a month to have the house demolished, failing which he'd sack him.

StackSteevens · 01-08-2020 7:21pm

Giuliana Yummy Strap wrote: »

Having dealt with SDCC I am actually on the side of the builders here.

Having eaten a banana I hate grapefruit.

Impressive logic right enough.

Sinead Mc1 · 01-08-2020 7:48pm

Size of it!!! Even the garage is gigantic! Jesus, if you're gonna break the rules at least be discreet!!! It really is so arrogant. Thought they were untouchable. If we all behaved like this where would we be?

Tiger20 · 01-08-2020 8:06pm

No comment on the size of the house, but as someone who has been through the planning process and being familiar with local authority development plans, I say fair ****s to them. I have a huge issue with locals only, as an Irish citizen and under our constitution I have the same rights as every other person, so if they are allowed planning then so should I. Also, I was told issue x y and z meant I couldn't get planning, only to witness others with exact same things granted planning. I have seen people with no housing need granted planning, people with 2nd houses granted planning etc. It is definitely a situation of one rule for you anda different rule for others, so until the laws of this country are applied equally, then I say **** you to the authorities. Best of luck to the Murrays

chooseusername · 01-08-2020 8:17pm

Tiger20 wrote: »

No comment on the size of the house, but as someone who has been through the planning process and being familiar with local authority development plans, I say fair ****s to them. I have a huge issue with locals only, as an Irish citizen and under our constitution I have the same rights as every other person, so if they are allowed planning then so should I. Also, I was told issue x y and z meant I couldn't get planning, only to witness others with exact same things granted planning. I have seen people with no housing need granted planning, people with 2nd houses granted planning etc. It is definitely a situation of one rule for you anda different rule for others, so until the laws of this country are applied equally, then I say **** you to the authorities. Best of luck to the Murrays

On what grounds were you refused planning permission?

Murrays probably thought the 4 year rule would apply

Bass Reeves · 01-08-2020 8:27pm

cute geoge wrote: »

There was a lad not far from here who built a small bungalow on his site with no p.p. which already had a few small sheds .This was in arse whole of nowhere forestry all around it and K.c.c. rightly or wrongly made him knock it .

I think Kerry CC also made a person who build a house down around Kenmore demolish a house.i think they had previously applied for planning and were refused. I think it happened in the noughties.

There are declared structures you do not need planning for such as a pump house, limited structures in a farm yard, limited extension's to a house etc. Most structures need planning to build or modify. There was an arrogance 10-15+years ago that if you build it you would always get retention. Someone was always going to suffer. I am surprised that MCC after going so far have not sought to implement the decision.

There was also the case in Kerry where a farmer objected to someone seeking planning in a field they owned over a ring fort. He then bought the field and bulldozed the ring fort. KCC took him to court and he was fined and had to pay court costs. It cost him about 80k I think

Tiger20 · 01-08-2020 8:44pm

I was eventually granted planning, on my 3rd attempt. Reasons I was refused were that I wasnt local and wasnt within the A3 zone, (which are subjective), but I knew of other applications where other people were granted planning despite being not locall, and in fact from other countries. I was refused because apparently I didn't have a housing need because Ihad a 2 bedroom house already. This despite the fact that if you are in a2 bed local authority house, you are entitled to a 3 bed if you have 3 kids, so different criteria applied by the same authority in different situations. I was told my proposed dwelling was too large,(220 sq m), despite it being smaller than the 300 sq m house on one side and the 285 sq m house on the other. I have seen people who already have a house granted planning, with them not declaring the fact they have one but questions not being asked by the LA, and others who are genuine and in need being refused. I have seen people who are "connected", either by being GAA heads or business owners, getting planning. One person I know had a large house on 4 acres, granted permission to "downsize" to a 200 sq m house on 2 acres within the original 4, and then repeat the trick 15 years later to an acre site within the 2 acre site. My point is that their is zero consistency within decisions made, and if the authorities want respect, then all laws should be applied equally. Look at people who have shoplifted and get prosecuted, but white collar criminals who do much more damage getting away with it. I feel that this country belongs to every citizen equally, but the laws are not applied that way. So fair ****s to people who challenge the authorities of this country

Seth Brundle · 01-08-2020 8:52pm

John_Rambo wrote: »

I seriously doubt an architect was engaged for this building!

Generally architects know sweet FA about planning!

StackSteevens wrote: »

If that fat clown from Malahide who is Minister for Housing had any cojones then he'd give the County Manager a month to have the house demolished, failing which he'd sack him.

Brave words :rolleyes:
Does the minister have the authorisation to instruct a county manager to knock an unauthorised development or sack a county manager?
You can also bet that if the housing Minister got involved in insisting on the demolition of an unauthorised development, you'd have a gaggle of SJWs moaning about how the homeless could have been housed, etc.

Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

Comments