Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

um7y1h83ge06nx

I'm sure if they let a few "cultured" people at it they would happily take away the copper and lead for free.

More to demolishing a house than just knocking it, I would imagine there would be a cost to taking the rubble somewhere although you would get some money back from scrap merchants for the metals.

cameramonkey

I just demolished a smallish house. The amount of rubble is surprising.
The house gets stripped of all the fittings, wood, slates and anything that needs to be separated, that took a few days. Knocking what was left took about 30 minutes. Then carting everything to the landfill a few days more.
I think we had about 3 huge skips and about 8 big lorry loads.

Lockheed

McMansion is the only word for the house, glad it was refused permission. As for the bellends who built it anyway, there are no words

lawrencesummers

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Probably not insured either

Well no mortgage so thats on them. Its all very foolish on their part. Very foolish and now they are left ****ed but lets be honest, they ****ed themselves

They built without permission
They refused the orders
They fought all the way to the supreme court

Why shouldnt they foot the bill for a case they lost?

StackSteevens

StackSteevens wrote: »

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.

I did and it changes nothing, you want action taken. Against anyone. Its for the house builder to comply with the order. Its for the courts to find him in default and contempt. The order doesnt grant anyone else authority to go onto private lands and start smashing.

The council will argue but at the moment they are out a couple of hundred grand over this and as you can see, it has taken over a decade to date.

CrankyHaus

Lockheed wrote: »

McMansion is the only word for the house, glad it was refused permission. As for the bellends who built it anyway, there are no words

What about their mates creating accounts to come on here and make spurious arguments for why the law should not apply to them?

Darc19

For anyone supporting this, the land was sterilized from development before they bought it.

It is extremely rare for a council to vary such sterilisation even for a family member of the land owner. Rarer still to do it for an unconnected person.

They knew this before they bought it.

They then commenced building immediately after planning was refused.


Council should have been quicker and obtained a court order to prevent it being built.



Similar story in the uk - eventually took contempt of court action and 3 months prison sentence to get it demolished https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeycrock_Farm

Varik

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

No reason to comply with any laws so. It's cheaper to just not bother.

There tends to be actual consequences for most laws.

When it's easier/cheaper to just ignore it then it's a pretty pointless law.

StackSteevens

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I did and it changes nothing, you want action taken. Against anyone. Its for the house builder to comply with the order. Its for the courts to find him in default and contempt. The order doesnt grant anyone else authority to go onto private lands and start smashing.

The council will argue but at the moment they are out a couple of hundred grand over this and as you can see, it has taken over a decade to date.

Please try not to be so stupid - I want action taken against the individual who broke the law, not "against anyone" as you suggest.

And I want the State Body that took and won the Supreme Court case to get the lead out of its corporate arse and to take whatever steps are necessary for the Supreme Court's verdict to be implemented. I assume that this might require the Council taking an action against Murray for contempt of court.

El Tarangu

bladespin wrote: »

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.

Presumably this is at the behest of Meath CoCo and as such represents the will the people. Perhaps it's universal, but it seems a particularly Irish thing, this notion of: "building a house in the middle of this field (and then having all of the nice services connected up to it regardless of where it is) is my inalienable birthright".

With all the money they spent building that monstrosity, they could have just bought a nice house.

Guy:Incognito

Speaking of services. Is there no restrictions on getting connected? I assume they are on a septic tank for sewage, but is there no planning involved in getting power to them? How did no issue arise at that stage?

StackSteevens

StackSteevens wrote: »

Please try not to be so stupid - I want action taken against the individual who broke the law, not "against anyone" as you suggest.

And I want the State Body that took and won the Supreme Court case to get the lead out of its corporate arse and to take whatever steps are necessary for the Supreme Court's verdict to be implemented. I assume that this might require the Council taking an action against Murray for contempt of court.

You are the one that was being stupid. You made the comment and it was exactly that, stupid.

I see above you have clarified the point you were making into a sensible one.

ronivek

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Speaking of services. Is there no restrictions on getting connected? I assume they are on a septic tank for sewage, but is there no planning involved in getting power to them? How did no issue arise at that stage?

The ESB have legal powers to run cabling and don’t require planning permission. Aside from that the owners are in construction so presumably could arrange whatever kind of work they needed without many questions being asked.

Quantum Erasure

Could their power be cut off, legally?

CrankyHaus

El Tarangu wrote: »

it seems a particularly Irish thing, this notion of: "building a house in the middle of this field (and then having all of the nice services connected up to it regardless of where it is) is my inalienable birthright".

Shure they only want to live with some space and peace and quiet....

And a post office a short drive away...
And a fully manned Garda Station...
And high speed broadband....
And a full service hospital....
And a motorway to Dublin...
And a train line....
And an internationally ranked University, none of this IT nonsense...
And an international airport.

Shure up in Dublin they have a Luas and all, it's a disgrace how Rural Ireland gets nothing from the state.

Tiger20

Donald Trump wrote: »

They shouldn't granting permission to non-locals.
It shouldn't have mattered how many times you applied[/quote

If you knew anything, you would know that the locals only rule has been found to be illegal and discriminatory by the EU, (Flemish rule)but so far the Irish authorities have not responded to amend this, but of course that's okay as they can break the laws but no one else can. If the authorities are so keen to be lawful, and for its citizens to be lawful, then apply the law. In my particular case, I was successful eventually because I persevered through many stressful years and after loads of research, and was able to demonstrate that the granting of planning was consistent with other decisions made. Through my research I found many examples of applications granted while others refused. I have seen sites refused numerous times for different applicants, and the someone else is successful where others were told no dwelling would be allowed there. IMO, there is total inconsistency in the way the system is administered, which leads to total frustration.

CrankyHaus

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Shure they only want to live with some space and peace and quiet....

And a post office a short drive away...
And a fully manned Garda Station...
And high speed broadband....
And a full service hospital....
And a motorway to Dublin...
And a train line....
And an internationally ranked University, none of this IT nonsense...
And an international airport.

Shure up in Dublin they have a Luas and all, it's a disgrace how Rural Ireland gets nothing from the state.

Not sure I understand the point you're making? I'm completely against the house mentioned in this thread, but in general, I admire and envy people that managed to get their houses out of the urban areas that are generally a misery to live in.


I'd much rather live in a house in a field in <any location> than live in Dublin, Drogheda, Navan, etc.

If those people are fortunate enough to have all the amenities mentioned above, on their doorstep, then more power to them. They're making a mockery of us 'urban dwellers', but they did the right thing staying away from, or getting out of, urban living, in my opinion.

Seth Brundle

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not sure I understand the point you're making? I'm completely against the house mentioned in this thread, but in general, I admire and envy people that managed to get their houses out of the urban areas that are generally a misery to live in.


I'd much rather live in a house in a field in <any location> than live in Dublin, Drogheda, Navan, etc.

If those people are fortunate enough to have all the amenities mentioned above, on their doorstep, then more power to them. They're making a mockery of us 'urban dwellers', but they did the right thing staying away from, or getting out of, urban living, in my opinion.

It costs the taxpayer a lot more to provide services for one-off housing.

StackSteevens

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You are the one that was being stupid. You made the comment and it was exactly that, stupid.

I see above you have clarified the point you were making into a sensible one.

Your comprehension difficulties aren't really my concern. If you struggled to understand what I wrote earlier, then why not find a night class that could help you to bush up on your reading and comprehension skills?

Now, as it's now abundantly clear that you've absolutely nothing informative, intelligent, helpful or pertinent to contribute to this thread I'm adding you to my ignore list.

2018na

Just to say I am familiar with the house and would know one of the Murrays but not the chap who built this house. My own view is they have made a monumental error of judgment with out question. But since then they have been through hell and back financially emotionally and I would imagine if they could turn the clock back then they never would dream of proceeding as they did with the build. In a lot of ways I feel they have served there sentence now and have been made an example of. It would be a shocking waste to demolish that building and would benefit no one. They are facing ginormous costs way above the value of the place anyway. It has set a precedent already imo no one in Ireland will attempt this again

StackSteevens

StackSteevens wrote: »

Your comprehension difficulties aren't really my concern. If you struggled to understand what I wrote earlier, then why not find a night class that could help you to bush up on your reading and comprehension skills?

Now, as it's now abundantly clear that you've absolutely nothing informative, intelligent, helpful or pertinent to contribute to this thread I'm adding you to my ignore list.

StackSteevens wrote: »

I would imagine that The Minister has the authorisation to instruct a public servant to uphold the law of the land. If the public servant subsequently disobeys the Minister then that would be grounds for a disciplinary process which could end up with his or her dismissal.

"StackSteevens wrote:

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?

Your words. It's very clear.

El Tarangu

2018na wrote: »

In a lot of ways I feel they have served there sentence now and have been made an example of. It would be a shocking waste to demolish that building and would benefit no one. They are facing ginormous costs way above the value of the place anyway. It has set a precedent already imo no one in Ireland will attempt this again

If the house doesn't get knocked and they are allowed to continue living there, that would certainly set a precedent; everyone will build what they like, safe in the knowledge that, whatever else happens, they will get to continue living in their illegally-constructed house.

Guy:Incognito

2018na wrote: »

My own view is they have made a monumental error of judgment with out question.

Its way beyond that. It was a very conscious **** you to the authorities. Building a house twice the size after permission was denied was nothing like an "error of judgement"

2018na wrote: »

. In a lot of ways I feel they have served there sentence now and have been made an example of.

In what way? Theres been no consequences beyond having to go to court because of their own decisions.

Seth Brundle

2018na wrote: »

But since then they have been through hell and back financially emotionally and I would imagine if they could turn the clock back then they never would dream of proceeding as they did with the build. In a lot of ways I feel they have served there sentence now and have been made an example of.

It's all their own doing and whilst they've opposed the legal outcomes all the way, they made the decision to continue on that path.
I've no sympathy for them at all. They gave two fingers to the planning acts and to the legal system because it didn't suit them.

2018na wrote: »

It would be a shocking waste to demolish that building and would benefit no one.

It's a vulgar eyesore. Sh1te like that should never be allowed.

2018na wrote: »

They are facing ginormous costs way above the value of the place anyway. It has set a precedent already imo no one in Ireland will attempt this again

Are you for real?
The costs are of their own making. As for precedent, we need to define breaches of the acts with harsh punishments including razing developments and site restoration.

Treppen

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.

Were you the informer in 2007…?

batman75

Ultimately the house needs to be flattened . There are planning laws and to flout them cannot be tolerated. To not demolish the house is to open a national can of worms.

What I will say though is that those that work in planning offices across the country wield power. Power corrupts plus the possibility of personal vendettas can’t be ruled out. Plus power can go to people’s heads. I’m not sure if their is enough checks and balances to offset the problems that those who wield power can present.

Seth Brundle

batman75 wrote: »

What I will say though is that those that work in planning offices across the country wield power. Power corrupts plus the possibility of personal vendettas can’t be ruled out. Plus power can go to people’s heads. I’m not sure if their is enough checks and balances to offset the problems that those who wield power can present.

I'm taking it for granted that you don't know any of these people and your opinion is based on a wild imagination

scamalert

In this day and age youd wonder how those in goverment sponge off with millions in their pockets, the so called minority never does wrong and gets away with 100s suspended convictions but sure lets talk about someone pouring cash out their pockets because they didnt get some POS paper stamped for approval are the mobs here. Pathetic :cool:

batman75

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'm taking it for granted that you don't know any of these people and your opinion is based on a wild imagination

Power corrupts as we have seen too many instances in Ireland to believe otherwise. I have no interest in this house standing or otherwise.

Darc19

batman75 wrote: »

Power corrupts as we have seen too many instances in Ireland to believe otherwise. I have no interest in this house standing or otherwise.

Every document relating to every planning application is online for everyone to read.

Decisions are described in detail both those refused and those granted.

But some people just hate that their preconceived notions are blown out by facts.