Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

Once a house has passed its 7 year exemption limit it is deemed unenforceable. However the house doesn't have planning permission and can never get planning permission. This effectively renders it valueless and virtually unsellable.

I have a friend who bought such a 5 bedroom house on Achile for around €25k. For this very reason.

Not true. You can be granted retention permission at any stage, including in cases where the 7 years has elapsed.

I think the poster means that the specific house can never get planning permission. The Council claims there was a Section 47 order on the land (from the time of the previous owners) prohibiting building on it. So it's not possible to get planning permission (retention or otherwise) with that in place. The family in question dispute that the Section 47 order was formally entered into, so the determination of its validity seems to be still going though the courts.

You won't on a whole house because it set a precedent. It's entirely different for extensions.

That's not correct.

7 years is the limit on enforcement. But there is nothing that says after 7 years it can never get planning. For example this house is there over 15 years and there is a current appeal to grant planning. They are unlikely to be successful, but legally planning could be granted even now.

It's also incorrect to say that not having planning renders a house valueless. That really makes no sense. Am enforcement order will obviously cripple the value. But once the 7 years are passed, the house won't be demolished so it usually retains most of its value. How much the value drops is decided by the market.

Find a single example where a house has been given retention after the 7 year rule. It never happens because every council knows what that would mean in terms of rouge buildings. Council planning officers meet up regularly and this will have been decided on a whole country basis.

Secondly not having planning but having passed the seven years undetected means that you cannot make any material changes to the outside of the house for fear that a fresh enforcement notice could be issued resetting the clock back to zero.

This was the exact advice my friends solicitor gave him when he sought to buy the house - and the original asking price was in the region of €300k and the final price that was accepted was around €25k.

The law may not be prescriptive in the detail of what can happen - but common practice is very prescriptive as to how these cases are handled.

In this specific case, a judge will never overturn the the decision of the council with regard to one off houses because it would make a mockery of the whole planning process and he would be well aware of this. The only basis that a planning decision could be overturned is if the original decision erred in the application of planning law - which at this stage will have been established as not having happened.

This couple are playing the appeals system but ultimately it will grind into the dust and then it's just a matter of whether the council have the bottle to appear to be forcing the demolition of the house.

That true but doesn’t changes what I said. I was aware of both cases, as you probably knew.
Banks won’t touch a property where enforcement could wipe of the collateral. They may do after 7 years, as the risk is gone. Or where another property is collateral. Regardless, value is set by the market, not whether a bank will touch it.

A subsequent development is not possible while non-compliant. But is someone really looking to extend a 600sqm house? Doubt it.

Both of those will reduce value as I said, but suggest it becomes worthless is nonsense. Once it can remain there in perpetuity, it has considerable value.
(obvious not the case here with enforcement having taken plave with 7 years).

Retention is regularly is granted after the 7 year limit. Saying you can never get planning at that point is simply untrue.
Most commonly, people need to apply for retention years later to bring it in line when selling.

Planners have to follow planning law. They can’t meet up in secret and invent rules.

Secondly not having planning but having passed the seven years undetected means that you cannot make any material changes to the outside of the house for fear that a fresh enforcement notice could be issued resetting the clock back to zero.

Also incorrect. The statute of limitations is 7 years. Council do have have the ability to reset that clock. It’s a literally statutory.

The reason you can’t undertake further development even after the 7 years is is because planning permission won’t be granted with unauthorised development on site. If you did go ahead and extend (for example) without planning, enforcement could only be undertaken in regards to the extension. The "7 years" are not reset for the house. Whoever told you thing misunderstood something.

In this specific case, a judge will never overturn the the decision of the council with regard to one off houses because it would make a mockery of the whole planning process and he would be well aware of this. The only basis that a planning decision could be overturned is if the original decision erred in the application of planning law - which at this stage will have been established as not having happened.

I agree they won't get planning permission in this case. Nor should they.
But the above does not apply to this case.

The point I'm disputing is the idea that when "a house has passed its 7 year limit it can never get planning permission".
Obviously that wasn't about this specific house, as this house did not get remotely near 7 years before enforcement was undertaken.

You are correct, I did misread it. They already moved students in, applied to have the planning ammended and have failed in that process.

Although 80 students have been living at Rhebogue since October, Limerick City
and County Council issued a warning letter last year to UL challenging
the use of the houses for student residences. The university disputed
such claims in a formal reply to the local authority but it has yet to
hand down a determination.

At the height of the controversy in recent days, however, the council
issued an adverse ruling to Silvergrove on its October application for
retention permission in relation to boundary and landscaping issues at
Rhebogue.

Limerick City and County Council said: “It appears to the planning authority
that the proposed development relates to a site, the use of which is
considered unauthorised for use as student accommodation. The retention
of works associated would facilitate this unauthorised use and therefore
the planning authority are not disposed to granting permission.”

Reminds me of that case recently in Dublin. Trinity wanted to build much needed student accommodation but their plan was rejected because a wealthy woman with a property with a view to the university decided she didn't like the prospect of an alteration to the view she enjoyed.

Nyet must the favourite default response of planners in this country.

I https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/challenge-allowed-to-planning-permission-for-trinity-hall-expansion/39657857.html

Only one person is mentioned challenging the planning that was granted resulting in it being overturned. Another article uses the plural when mentioning residents, but it could as easily still be just the woman who brought the action, and her husband. Basically they chose to live next to a university, which I belive predates them, but don't like how students behave when they are inebriated, which is the same as it has been since the creation of such institutions.

Probably one of the more acute cases of nimbyism that are so common.

They've been shot down again with their appeal.

The link is behind a paywall in todays Independent.

I wonder what grounds they will use for the next appeal

Scumbags.

House should be levelled. If they don't like it. **** em.

Another failure of Irish justice.

That case is an absolute **** joke. I'd say you could summarize the Republic of Ireland in that case. Instead of The Field, it's The McMansion. The house should be demolished and they should be jailed for taking the piss out of the law and wasting tax payers money. The land it's on should be taken from them. This is why this excuse of a country is doomed to fail again and again.

Some chancers.

And what do you think the Council has been doing since this whole saga began! The council has no way of stopping repetitive planning applications and subsequent appeals nor has any authority to prevent people taking the matter through the court system. If you want to apportion blame then lay it at the feet of the various governments who enacted piss poor legislation.

No, they're not toothless. They have dealt with this matter by way of enforcement right up to and including court proceedings. They have used the legal powers conferred on them but they can't be responsible for inadequate legislation in other areas.

The legal bill must be massive.

maybe a european appeal awaits??

It never will be. I suspect the council are sorry they didn't just grant retention the first time around. The council certainly don't want to have to knock it either and are hoping a court eventually rules in favour of the Murrays which won't happen either. The Murrays and the council will just the let the clock tick on this. They will issue letter after letter but won't ever enforce. Laughable.

You expect them to issue enforcement action? Really? As I said earlier what do you think they have been doing since this began!

You obviously haven't a clue about the planning process. That's fine. I haven't a clue about cars for example but I'm not going to enter into a discussion about them when I don't know what I'm talking about and then argue the point with someone who has spent a lifetime working at them.

Enforcement in action in not unique to meath co council. I lived beside a small bungalow that had a demolition order on it for refused planning for over 15 years. It was built in the back garden of another house. It was only demolished when the main house was sold after the original owner and builder died.