Register to Comment
Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 102
Like Tree93Likes
  1. #1
    Mushroom Mushroom is offline
    Mushroom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    12,927

    Supreme Court instructs foolish couple to demolish their unauthorised home.

    And finally - 11 years after the house was built illegally - the Supreme Court has upheld the planning laws.

    Big bloody deal.

    Couple given one year to demolish house built without permission
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #2
    publicrealm publicrealm is offline
    publicrealm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,735

    There could be no alternative outcome unless we concede that compliance with the Planning and Development Act is somehow discretionary.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #3
    stopdoingstuff stopdoingstuff is online now
    stopdoingstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    20,362

    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?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #4
    razorblade razorblade is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    1,884

    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 by razorblade; 19th May 2017 at 11:12 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #5
    Half Nelson Half Nelson is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    17,756

    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?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #6
    fergal1790 fergal1790 is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    328

    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 by fergal1790; 19th May 2017 at 11:35 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #7
    publicrealm publicrealm is offline
    publicrealm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,735

    Quote Originally Posted by stopdoingstuff View Post
    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.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #8
    West-Cork West-Cork is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,200

    Quote Originally Posted by Half Nelson View Post
    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.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #9
    Betson Betson is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    10,497

    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.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #10
    odlum odlum is offline
    odlum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    4,186

    ooops.
    Last edited by odlum; 20th May 2017 at 04:57 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment