DUBLIN, Ireland: A county council in Ireland spent more than 680,000 euros 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 euros in legal fees alone in relation to the unauthorized development saga at Bohermeen.

Costs increased this year, with 408,702 euros 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 they climbed to around 17,500 euros in 2010.

In the next three years, the local authority spent another 47,000 euros, all of it on legal bills.

Between 2014 and 2017, as the case continued, costs were minimal, totaling just 7,000 euros over four years.

However, in 2018, legal bills jumped to more than 81,000 euros before enforcement-related spending quietened over the next few years.

Meath County Council said costs in 2022 totaled around 28,000 euros, of which lawyers' fees accounted for around 22,000 euros, with the remainder under "miscellaneous" spending.

Between 2023 and 2025, its legal bills totaled nearly 79,000 euros, with direct planning enforcement accounting for a further 1,230 euros.

This year, costs on the case exploded as Meath County Council finally demolished the illegally constructed house.

Its legal bills totaled almost 375,000 euros, according to a spending log.

A further 33,394 euros was spent on security during the demolition, conducted amid high tensions in the area.

The overall bill across the 20-year process came to 683,409 euros.

When 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 several 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.

Most of the costs incurred were related 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."