Supreme Court instructs foolish couple to demolish their unauthorised home.



publicrealm

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
5,902
There could be no alternative outcome unless we concede that compliance with the Planning and Development Act is somehow discretionary.
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,399
Interesting. I know I could look it up but I am tired after a hard day of VAT law (I know). Does anyone know why planning permission was refused to begin with i.e. why the council would have asked the previous owners not to develop the land?
 

razorblade

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2016
Messages
8,081
They didnt follow the correct planning precedure they have no choice other than full demolition tough i know but its the law, you cant go around building anywhere as you please.
 
Last edited:

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,415
It seems the house is to be demolished on a point of principle rather than for any practical consideration.

A family home is a stiff price to pay when a fine would do just as well. Retention is regularly granted to illegal constructions, so why not now?
 

fergal1790

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
1,743
Meath County Council, which brought the case against Michael Murray, a plumber, and his wife Rose, said it would not apply for legal costs against them if the house is demolished.
Before building their house, the Murrays applied for, but were refused, permission for a 283sq m dormer bungalow for them and their three children on part of the land.

Despite this, they built what a judge described as an “imposing” structure nearly double the size and without planning permission.

The council brought enforcement proceedings which resulted in a High Court decision in 2010 that they should demolish within two years.


‘Preposterous’
The couple argued in the High Court the house was part of land which Mr Murray farmed. The High Court judge said the argument was “preposterous” and they had “brought this on themselves”.

They appealed but a five-judge Supreme Court upheld the High Court decision on Friday. In their appeal, they argued, among other things, the demolition order was incompatible with their property, family, parental and private ownership rights under the Constitution, and similar rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Giving the Supreme Court’s decision, Mr Justice William McKechnie said the court was mindful of the hardship its decision would cause to the Murrays but it could not lose sight of the fact they had been living for over a decade in an unauthorised development built in flagrant breach of the planning laws.
Couple given one year to demolish house built without permission

They built a house illegally and after being told not to and now they may get away with costing Meath CoCo millions in costs if they comply with the order to demolish the illegally built house?
 
Last edited:

publicrealm

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
5,902
Interesting. I know I could look it up but I am tired after a hard day of VAT law (I know). Does anyone know why planning permission was refused to begin with i.e. why the council would have asked the previous owners not to develop the land?

It's a fairly standard provision where permission is granted for a house on land to require that the remainder of the land be 'sterilised' - generally because special circumstances were admitted for consideration for the first permission.
 

West-Cork

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
1,097
It seems the house is to be demolished on a point of principle rather than for any practical consideration.

A family home is a stiff price to pay when a fine would do just as well. Retention is regularly granted to illegal constructions, so why not now?
Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't retention generally applied when there's been a relatively small variation to a design that's already had approval. Either way, looking at the house in the OP you'd have to have quite a thick neck or be a bit daft to risk that investment with no planning permission at all.
 

Betson

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
16,702
Huge blow to the couple having to knock a perfectly fine house. But rules are rules.

There was a similar situation near us that went on for years in the courts and everyone in the locality was certain it would end up with them having to demolish but in the end the council withdrew their objection and the is still standing. But there must of been some money spent on legal bills on both sides. Same in this situation I suspect.
 

damus

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Messages
23,512
Why did the council allow it to get to a point of completion? Surely somebody would have seen the construction and alerted the council that there were an unauthorised construction on the site. Btw, it would have had a much better visual impact with a single level double garage.
 

McDave

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
13,520
Proper order. Ridiculous that it should have to have gone that far.

Pity that Hogan issued that almost populist Wicklow judgement which, although overturned, temporarily muddied the waters on this fairly straightforward issue.
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
30,447
It seems the house is to be demolished on a point of principle rather than for any practical consideration.

A family home is a stiff price to pay when a fine would do just as well. Retention is regularly granted to illegal constructions, so why not now?
How much should the fine be? Just a rough figure will do.
 

GJG

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
3,112
Website
blog.hereshow.ie
It's stupid to tear down the house, very wasteful. As HN said they should have been fined. Perhaps, a lien on the house.


Couple told to tear down secret £500,000 luxury home they hid inside a hay barn after losing final round of 10 year legal battle with planners | Daily Mail Online
It seems the house is to be demolished on a point of principle rather than for any practical consideration.

A family home is a stiff price to pay when a fine would do just as well. Retention is regularly granted to illegal constructions, so why not now?
Can you give any rationale why people who flagrantly break the law should be given such a huge advantage over law-abiding citizens?
 

fat finger

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
2,175
Can you give any rationale why people who flagrantly break the law should be given such a huge advantage over law-abiding citizens?
No doubt Enda will intervene, appealing on behalf of the Murray family.
After all, isn't that what he did in America, appealing on behalf of all the Irish who entered America illegally?
And lets see if our media takes the same view towards lawbreaking here, especially the Indo which went OTT with 'Global praise for Enda Kenny after his inspiring immigration speech'
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
It's a tough situation but for whatever reason they fell into the category of 'need to be made an example of' and they really have only themselves to blame thinking that 'the rules don't apply to us' sort. The only ones that benefit in these situations are the briefs and I note that the Council will not be pursuing the couple for costs, so that bill is picked up by the tax payer.
 

damus

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Messages
23,512
Did the farmer sell the land to the Murrays knowing that it would not secure PP? Surely, the Murrays would have ascertained if there were any conditions against securing PP prior to buying the land.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top