Council spent over €680,000 pursuing planning enforcement case on since-demolished home
Ken Foxe
A county council spent more than €680,000 pursuing a long-running planning enforcement case over a five-bed luxury home built without permission in its area.
Meath County Council incurred €642,696 in legal fees alone in relation to the unauthorised development saga at Bohermeen.
Costs surged this year with €408,702 in costs recorded as the council took possession of the property and demolition works were carried out.
A table of costs released under FOI reveals how bills began to mount for the county council as far back as 2007 when enforcement action first started.
The costs were minimal in the first three years before rising to around €17,500 in 2010.
Over the following three years, a further €47,000 was spent by the local authority, all of it on legal bills.
Between 2014 and 2017, as the case rumbled on, costs were minor, amounting to just €7,000 over a four-year period.
In 2018, legal bills suddenly increased to more than €81,000 before a lull in enforcement-related spending over the next few years.
Meath County Council said costs in 2022 hit around €28,000 – around €22,000 of that for lawyers and the rest in “miscellaneous” spending.
Between 2023 and 2025, its legal bills came to nearly €79,000 with a further €1,230 spent on direct planning enforcement.
This year, costs on the case exploded as Meath County Council finally demolished the illegally constructed house.
Its legal bills reached almost €375,000, according to a log of spending.
A further €33,394 was spent on security during the demolition, which was carried out amid high tensions in the area.
The overall bill across the 20 year process came to €683,409.
Asked about the records, a spokesman for Meath County Council said the figures reflected costs incurred over “a prolonged period” in relation to the case.
He said: “The matter has been before the courts on multiple occasions over a number of years, including proceedings in the High Court and on appeal to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, where the enforcement position of the Council was upheld.
“The majority of costs incurred relate to legal proceedings associated with this process.”
Asked if it had any additional comment on the costs involved, the spokesman said: “As this remains an ongoing legal matter, it would not be appropriate to comment further at this time.”
