Supreme Court orders demolition of 'family home'


#1

Supreme Court orders demolition of house that breaches planning laws
The Murrays built the 588sqm house in 2006 at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, Navan, Meath.
Before building their house, the Murrays applied for permission for a 283sqm dormer bungalow. This was refused. They went ahead anyway and built what a judge describe as an “imposing” structure nearly double that size without planning permission. Plumber, Michael Murray, and his wife Rose, have a year to comply with the court’s order.
Meath Co Council, which brought the case against them, said it would not apply for legal costs against them if the house is demolished.

Following on from this thread from 2010


#2

irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/supreme-court/couple-given-one-year-to-demolish-house-built-without-permission-1.3089521


#3

Builders should be prosecuted also for putting that up without PP


#4

Very unfair, a beautiful house like that should be left in place for future generations to enjoy


#5

This is a puzzling story. Did the Murrays build the house thinking nobody would notice it? Or had someone ‘inside’ given them the nod that they’d be looked after?


#6

It’s Miss Ellie I feel sorry for. I suppose they’ll have to put her into a nursing home ?


#7

Just think how many 1970s fireplaces had to die to make that cladding. :open_mouth: :cry:


#8

Or he never got around to disguising it


#9

Clearly McKechnie is a bit of a fool.


#10

True, so sad, I would only make two changes, a few marble columns would be a nice touch, and there is no real need for the double garage

Its better to park the Merc CLS 350 D AMG sport (running on green Diesel) outside, people really need to see that shit, or whats the point, its a waste of borrowed money otherwise

I’m sure Miss Eille would agree, and JR too


#11

Bloody hell. I hadn’t realised the Sopranos was filmed in Meath.


#12

what’s wrong with what he said?

Hogan was banging on about the home being inviolable - as if that should matter in this context? It was bordering on freemanesque

algoodbody.com/insightspubli … _dwellings

Hogan should brush up on his Irish :unamused:

taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Histori … eland_.pdf


#13

Would a fine not be more suitable? Or compulsory purchase by the state for resale?
Sure its ugly but so are 100% of housing estates in urban areas and planning never seems to be an issue for developers even if its a floodplain etc


#14

I believe in a pluralist society.

I appreciate that some people want to live in huge houses but others don’t want to have to look at them.

Could we not simply designate areas lacking in any natural beauty (for example 99% of Co Meath) and just allow people to build big houses there if they like?


#15

No because not everyone who wants a non dog box lego lookalike house wants to live in meath


#16

It looks to me like a nice house, don’t really understand the piss taking, but it shouldn’t be allowed to stand.

Shame it’s taken 11 years to go through the system. I guess by the time it’s demolished they’ll have had 12 years in it.

It’s interesting to think of all the people involved in the construction who turned a blind eye to the lack of planning.


#17

Presumably there’s no mortgage on it, as a bank wouldn’t lend against a development with no PP. Plumbers wha?


#18

In 2006?


#19

Stop and think for a second. What is worse, that house or some of the crap that actually GOT planning permission.


#20

I don’t understand your point. The issue wasn’t the quality of the design or build, it’s that the planners didn’t want any dwelling there.