Council to seek court order to demolish Navan house
- This topic has 28 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
@Paul Clerkin wrote:
The “castle behind the bales” story continues
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/surrey/8495412.stmLet’s see now:
“The inspector ruled that the removal of the straw bales constituted part of the building works and the four-year immunity rule would not apply”.
And:
Deputy High Court judge Sir Thayne Forbes said: “In my view, the inspector’s findings of fact make it abundantly clear that the erection/removal of the straw bales was an integral – indeed an essential – fundamentally related part of the building operations that were intended to deceive the local planning authority and to achieve by deception lawful status for a dwelling built in breach of planning control.”
(shakes head)
I can see the High Court’s decisison being overturned.
Development is defined as “the carrying out of works on, under or over the land” in Irish law and its a pretty general principle.
Removing hay bales is not classed as development.
Storing them and placing them might be in some eyes.
Both might be thought of as being part of an Agricultural Use.
And the hay bales were without doubt integral to the strategy of deception.
But removing non-structural items like bales of hay is not part of what is commonly termed “building works” so the Judges sentiment seems strained.ONQ.
@onq wrote:
I can see the High Court’s decisison being overturned.
Development is defined as “the carrying out of works on, under or over the land” in Irish law and its a pretty general principle.
Removing hay bales is not classed as development.
Storing them and placing them might be in some eyes.
Both might be thought of as being part of an Agricultural Use.
And the hay bales were without doubt integral to the strategy of deception.
But removing non-structural items like bales of hay is not part of what is commonly termed “building works” so the Judges sentiment seems strained.ONQ.
I disagree.
I also disagree with the consistent use by the media of “loophole”. There is no loop hole here. It’s not an unknown concept, and its there for a reason.
However, he intended to break the law. He set out to break the law, and he erected this bales specifically in order to break the law.In my opinion, in a basic sense, the bales are on par with site hoarding, and while I agree that these don’t constitute development alone. When they are used in order to conceal a structure from public domain, they form part of the process. The structure should be available to the public domain before 4 (or 7) years begins. This case can’t be allow to pass as it set a terrible precedent, and above all, he set out to break the law, intentionally.
The problem here is that everyone involved wants to get this demolished, most invlve know it was wrong. However, doing so in a manner that allows it to be tied up in legal parlance is proving difficult
The period in the UK for planning by default is 4 years. His family was living in the house during that time so it was in a habitable state. Perhaps he could replace the straw bales and continue living there and then apply for permission to remove them. He still has a supreme court appeal to be heard.
@Bren88 wrote:
(snip)
In my opinion, in a basic sense, the bales are on par with site hoarding, and while I agree that these don’t constitute development alone. When they are used in order to conceal a structure from public domain, they form part of the process.(snip)
They may have been used as a screen to hide unauthorised development, but that didn’t requrie a hoarding licence as it was to the rear of the house.
The fact that he concealed it with straw bales shows that straw bales to that height were permitted on his land, otherwise people could have asked to have them removed.
Storage of straw bales two storeys high not raising an eyebrow suggests there is a related use such as agricultural or equestrian that needs straw bales.
Personally I view it an another fine example of lunacy in the building game – it’ll probably be listed.
ONQ.
@Frank Taylor wrote:
The period in the UK for planning by default is 4 years. His family was living in the house during that time so it was in a habitable state. Perhaps he could replace the straw bales and continue living there and then apply for permission to remove them. He still has a supreme court appeal to be heard.
*bweheheheheheheheh*
Are you a Planning Consultant by any chance, Frank?
We may yet be talking in RL with a mind like that.
🙂
ONQ.
@onq wrote:
*Are you a Planning Consultant by any chance, Frank?
No, I just think there is a wide gap in the prosecution’s logic.
We may yet be talking in RL with a mind like that.
What is RL?
Well, there is a high court decision on this matter now.
The sad fact is that IF mr Murray is not solvent that the taxpayer or banks will carry the can IF. the project originator gets to walk away under court protection from creditors. If he his not solvent then it should simply be repossessed and sold with any equity after court and council costs handed back; returning the land to agricultural use would be wanton in this climate. Whatever happens continued residence under these circumstances is a total non-runner.
588 square metres with no planning? This structure is a symptom of the ills that begot this country as a whole over the last decade – a big greedy unsustainable unnecessary material aspiration that celebrated giving two fingers to the rest of civic society, and as with the climate from which it emerged, it too now comes crashing down…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
