Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

You're pointing out your understanding of the written rules, my post that you thought you were correcting is the actual fact.

I'll take that as a yes.

The Ukrainians you have a bee in your bonnet about will also get naturalised if they stay here after the war for long enough

I've no problem with someone being an immigrant - it not a good look though that someone who is one would be constantly begrudging other others.

WTF?

So having worked for over 40 years in the planning business you are telling me Im wrong on that point. Ah well, whatever turns you on!

You could also argue that by making it such a headline story and putting stuff into the papers, the owners have pushed the council into a corner where they can't just quietly allow it to remain.

Perhaps a better solution for all is that they have the house knocked, reapply for permission and build something a bit more similar to the bungalows and houses around them.

Fundamentally it's never too late (or too expensive) to do right thing. And the right thing here is to demolish it.

Very unfortunate for the family. Possibly puts them from a relative comfortable life to going on the housing list or renting at best. But this is entirely their own making. And completely illegal.

There's a case for confiscation of the property and use it to house someone else more deserving, given the housing crisis. But this house is too impracticably large for vast majority of people. It's too remote and environmentally challenging to subdivided into multiple properties.

520sqm is what I have read. The sheer daftness to build without PP and then to put something like that up is incredible. Surely to god they must have had a conversation at some stage about it and raised the idea that it was madness proceeding without PP and then with something that would catch the attention of the whole country. As I've said if they'd have gone for 150sqm 4 bed they might have garnered some sort of sympathy or stood a chance of getting retention.

Edit: It's 588sqm. Holy crap.

It really shouldn't, but you have to acknowledge it would be an awful waste to demolish it now.

State should have a mechanism to confiscate it without having to pay a reward, or possibly with the addition of a fine. Would send a message that you won't benefit from ignoring the law, you will be punished, but also a mechanism for avoiding the wasteful destruction of the house which could be put to some use

I don't think that is realistic though, so would still rather see the house knocked down than let them get away with it

It was if the state was going to make use of the building.

It won't be. It'll be someone who is contracted to do it and paid big money. Eventually you will see them being found it contempt of a court order and facing possible prison terms. That will probably focus them.

I really does need to go. The whole planning process in Ireland will be worthless if this is allowed to remain.

Planning permission granted in 2004, I believe;

2005 map foundations visible;

4 years later ;

Council offered emergency accommodation to them as well.

We all know it shouldnt be there, but the reality is that it is there.

Knocking down a perfectly good house during a housing crisis is ridiculous.

State should take ownership or it and do whats best for the state. Knocking it down isnt in anyones interests, other than for spite.

The house was illegally built, should be able to take it via CAB.

Of course it's in the states interest to knock it. You can't allow this kind of dismissive behaviour to dictate to the people... if the system needs to change, then change it, but if someone purposely defies the planning laws, then the building should absolutely be removed! Otherwise we'd be living in a lawless society...

If the state takes ownership of the house then you arent allowing any kind of behaviour. You are punishing the owners just as much as if you knocked it down. They lose the house, but the state gains a house.

The house is "removed" from the couple, for the benefit of the state.

With the "knock it down" approach no one gains.

If the building is illegal, it’s illegal, no matter who owns it, that includes the state.

It will need to go. I suspect though it'll still be standing there in 10 years.

They should knock it and salvage what they. No reason why they wouldnt get permission to extend the other house. Imagine the plight of that though. Moving from a hotel into a modest 3 bed. What would the neighbours think.

From what ive read on other forums there is another property in the garden/plot which had been rented out. I know the PP was sought by another couple but ive heard its the Murrays who own it now. Could have bought it with the site.

The planning was refused for a much smaller house initially. I don’t think it was highways objecting.