Couple Ordered to Demolish House

Himselfe

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0629/murray.html

Harsh, yet fair I would think.

syklops

For those who dont like clicking on random links:

The High Court has ordered that a couple must demolish their two-storey home, which was built without planning permission.

Meath County Council sought the demolition order against Michael and Rose Murray after they were refused permission by An Bord Pleanála to retain the house at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen near Navan.

The house, which is house is 6,229sq.ft or 588sq.m, is more than twice the size of a previous planning application submitted by the couple for which permission was refused.
Advertisement

The couple, who have three children, had been refused planning permission for a number of different sites and Mr Murray gave a sworn statement that he had become 'totally frustrated' with the planning process.

The house was described by Mr Justice Edwards as a very large and imposing stone clad two storey dwelling house with a curved drive sweeping up to it and extensive lawns in front of it.

He said he was ordering its demolition with 'very great regret'.

He said this was not a case of a minor infraction or of accidental non-compliance or of non-compliance with some technicality, but was was a flagrant breach of the planning laws and completely unjustified.

He said Mr and Mrs Murray had sought to drive a coach and four through the planning laws and that could not be permitted no matter how frustrated they may have felt.

Mr Justice Edwards said it would undoubtedly constitute an enormous hardship to the Murrays to have to demolish their house, particularly in circumstances where Mr Murray, a plumber, was now a victim of the downturn in the construction industry and had little work.

He said nevertheless the law must be upheld and they had brought this on themselves.

The judge said he was prepared on a humanitarian basis to put a stay on the demolition order of 24 months.

The thing that I want to know is why were so many of the planning applications denied?

The couple, who have three children, had been refused planning permission for a number of different sites

Call me a cynic, but I wonder was it because the application was not accompanied by a nice thick brown envelope.

mayordenis

He said nevertheless the law must be upheld and they had brought this on themselves.

Unless the law is broken?

D3PO

dont see how its harsh.

they gave the planning authority the finger and got two fingers back.
good enough for them

markpb

syklops wrote: »

The thing that I want to know is why were so many of the planning applications denied? Call me a cynic, but I wonder was it because the application was not accompanied by a nice thick brown envelope.

I'd say it's more likely that they applied for planning permission for houses that were too big, out of keeping with the other houses in the area, had entrances on a national primary or secondary road or a whole host of other technical reasons.

Edit: You can search the Meath CoCo website for planning applications here and type in his name. They might not all the same Michael Murray but some of the addresses match. Unfortunately I can't see the reason for refusal anywhere.

testicle

syklops wrote: »

For those who dont like clicking on random links:



The thing that I want to know is why were so many of the planning applications denied?



Call me a cynic, but I wonder was it because the application was not accompanied by a nice thick brown envelope.

You're a cynic.

Stench Blossoms

Good enough for them. Shouldn't have built the house knowing they had no planning permission.

facksake

I think they should have to pay a fine on top of paying for the demolition and site clearance but that's just me.

It grinds my gears when people think they are above the law and can do what they want.

Delighted

Hootanany

Its a disgrace Look at Ivor the engine and planning he got away with it

cgc5483

they built a 6000 sq foot without having planning permission :eek:

What did they think if it was so big they wouldn't dare knock it.

D3PO

Hootanany wrote: »

Its a disgrace Look at Ivor the engine and planning he got away with it

and OJ Simpson got away with murder so its ok for everybody to go and do it then :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

cgc5483

cgc5483 wrote: »

they built a 6000 sq foot without having planning permission :eek:

What did they think if it was so big they wouldn't dare knock it.

probably why they didnt get planning permission, nobody wants you to have a decent sized house in this country

markpb

Deleted User wrote: »

probably why they didnt get planning permission, nobody wants you to have a decent sized house in this country

It's true. Local authorities have some cheek rejecting decent sized homes

The problem is that people want to buy any old site, plonk a 2 story, five-bed house on it, rip up field in front for a driveway, create a new entrance onto a main road, destroy the scenic the countryside (which tourists come here to see) and create extra traffic by isolating themselves from services like schools and shops.

facksake

I'd actually argue the opposite. I think loose regulation on planning at both commercial and residential level has contributed to the downfall of the economy somewhat.

Here's their retention application just to give ya a taste of what they were trying to retain.

http://www.meath.ie/ePlan41/FileRefDetails.aspx?file_number=KA802674&LASiteID=0

Planning is all about keeping with the character of the area. I don't know Faughan Hill in Navan but i'm assuming it's a rural area? Probably a lot of old country houses on sites, maybe the odd new development here or there. Assuming that's correct, building a 6,000 sq ft house next door to poor old Pat and Mary with their livestock who've been living there for the last 60 years most certainly should not be approved pp!

I think it was Pat and Mary who tipped the PA off tbh...

danbohan

markpb wrote: »

It's true. Local authorities have some cheek rejecting decent sized homes

The problem is that people want to buy any old site, plonk a 2 story, five-bed house on it, rip up field in front for a driveway, create a new entrance onto a main road, destroy the scenic the countryside (which tourists come here to see) and create extra traffic by isolating themselves from services like schools and shops.

this case must be fought tooth and nail by RISE etc , its time that people in countryside can build a '' little'' house for themselves and not have to listen to green sw dependants telling them what they can and cannot do , if you dont live in the countryside what goes on in countryside is none of your buisness !

Blizzard

I can see both sides - yes, planning is there for a reason but I really do feel (and have heard from friends that have gone through this for years) that, if ever you are approved, for many they end up building a house that was not what they planned due to all the stipulations, etc. Then on the flip side, I've heard of a few people who did give a brown envelope to someone or other and, what to do ya know, they get planning for a monstrous house - not in keeping with those in the area.

I know people who've applied for planning and have been rejected, go back to the drawing board and make the changes, submit again only to be rejected and this could go on and on for a number of years - all the while costing them more and more in planning application fees, architect costs, etc. I can see how someone finally took the law into their own hands and figured, f*@k it, I'll just go and build on my own land before the kids turn 18 and leave home. It's absolutely ridiculous. Why own or buy land to build on if you can't or it takes years and years to get it?

Is there any reason why this couple can't have a house where they ended up building? What is the real reason? Obviously it was a bad idea to build one so big. I do think that they should have gotten permission but it appears they went for it several times and no joy and no hope of anything being approved - then what? I don't think I would ever build without permission just for this reason, but it's time someone took a stand.

For the Pat & Mary's out there, we feel for you and all your acres and livestock, but if you really don't want neighbours you'll just have to buy the sites/land as they go up for sale - otherwise anyone with a dream in mind to having a house in the country should be allowed to go for it...without shelling out more money on backhanders to the gangsters in the planning offices around the country.

danbohan

Blizzard wrote: »

I can see both sides - yes, planning is there for a reason but I really do feel (and have heard from friends that have gone through this for years) that, if ever you are approved, for many they end up building a house that was not what they planned due to all the stipulations, etc. Then on the flip side, I've heard of a few people who did give a brown envelope to someone or other and, what to do ya know, they get planning for a monstrous house - not in keeping with those in the area.

I know people who've applied for planning and have been rejected, go back to the drawing board and make the changes, submit again only to be rejected and this could go on and on for a number of years - all the while costing them more and more in planning application fees, architect costs, etc. I can see how someone finally took the law into their own hands and figured, f*@k it, I'll just go and build on my own land before the kids turn 18 and leave home. It's absolutely ridiculous. Why own or buy land to build on if you can't or it takes years and years to get it?

Is there any reason why this couple can't have a house where they ended up building? What is the real reason? Obviously it was a bad idea to build one so big. I do think that they should have gotten permission but it appears they went for it several times and no joy and no hope of anything being approved - then what? I don't think I would ever build without permission just for this reason, but it's time someone took a stand.

For the Pat & Mary's out there, we feel for you and all your acres and livestock, but if you really don't want neighbours you'll just have to buy the sites/land as they go up for sale - otherwise anyone with a dream in mind to having a house in the country should be allowed to go for it...without shelling out more money on backhanders to the gangsters in the planning offices around the country.

to be honest building a 6000 sq ft house without planning is piszing in somebodys ear , obiviously their was no mortgage or borrowing on it or planning would be needed , seems like cash build , i wonder as well as ending up getting house knocked will this plumber find the taxman becomes intersted

i like lamp

i have no sympathy anyway! I might have a small bit if they built a normal sized house but that is just taking the micky!

Look at the position they have put their family in now. He is out of work and all that money spent is going to be knocked to the ground and its clear a lot of money went into it!

Im not saying that applying for pp is a fair or easy process but jeez like what did they expect! If they allowed for that to stay standing then the entire country would just build what they want!

How long has it been built?

John_Rambo

Wow... did you see the house on the news? Hideous looking thing, pure celtic tiger stuff. Can't believe they took such a risk on retention, after being refused planning for something smaller!! They have three kids, they are the ones I feel sorry for. RISE should be delighted with the result, gobsheens thinking they can do and build what they want with and on our countryside.

Some wealth there if they didn't get a loan to build.

the_syco

The couple, who have three children, had been refused planning permission for a number of different sites and Mr Murray gave a sworn statement that he had become 'totally frustrated' with the planning process.

So because he was 'totally frustrated' with the planning process, he ignored it? F**k him and his ilk.

In 2006 he was refused planning permission for a "a dormer bungalow style dwelling" at Faughan Hill. In 2010 he gets ordered to demolish his 6,229sq.ft house.

IMO, he's getting it knocked down as he got refused permission for a dormer bungalow, and built a huge house.

Blizzard

OK, after seeing the responses since I posted earlier I am now leaning towards the 'what were they thinking' reasoning and did they think they could get away with it really. Hadn't realized that they had paid cash for the house (all 6,000+ sq ft!) and was thinking he'd applied and applied for different houses & sites and was turned down on all accounts. As I did say before, system is totally frustrating and you could see how someone would go to this extreme - and it was extreme and not something I would ever dream of doing. I know of people who didn't follow planning exactly and got a 'slap on the hand' for doing things slightly other than plan, but I guess for something as big as this an example is being made and will stop others for doing the same.

Penn

As bad as I feel for their personal circumstances (the guy finding it difficult to get work and the cost of demolishing their home), they had to have known after going through the planning process several times, that there was a chance this would happen. To build a house twice the size of what they were refused planning for is just a big FU to the planners, so they can hardly be surprised that the planners have given an FU right back to them

mr j tayto

I think that if he got away with it surely it would set a very dangerous precedent whereby anyone who wants to build anything,anywhere,could just do as they please without any recourse from the planning authorities. That being said,you would have to feel for his family with todays decision. I also hope he can explain to revenue if they come round to see him,what a mess.

the_syco

mr j tayto wrote: »

I also hope he can explain to revenue if they come round to see him,what a mess.

I doubt it. In saying that, I'd say it'd cost around the same as a 3 bedroom house in Dublin. It's scary how much a good house in the country can be bought for, and if you can do a fair whack of it yourself, and know people who'll do the rest at a good price, it can be cheap.

markpb

the_syco wrote: »

I doubt it. In saying that, I'd say it'd cost around the same as a 3 bedroom house in Dublin. It's scary how much a good house in the country can be bought for

It's scary how people can compare apples and oranges and be still surprised at the results.

You pay more in Dublin because more people want to live there so the price is higher. You get better services, you can be closer to work, you don't need to rely on a car, you can go for a drink and not worry about not being able to get a taxi home and numerous other benefits. Likewise, there are benefits to living in the country, one of which is cheaper housing.

PJ Sheehan wrote:

You must remember that in Ballydehob or in Ballsbridge, one is entitled to the same privilege. We have no Luas service in west Cork. Neither have we a CIÉ service every 10 minutes or a taxi service.”

martin46585

in principle this development was completely wrong, but compare for a second this build, perfectly manicured lawns, walled and gated, all sight lines in place, to that of a urban sprawl type development of half finished white boxes on a by-road on the edge of a village.
which one looks like the unlawful development ??
he should have bought a round in the tent...........

David09

It's amazing how the planning laws are inconsistant between county councils. In Carlow you can almost get away with murder if you have a brown envelope large enough.
I've seen them turn a blind eye to irregularities of monumental proportions that this guy's house is only a molehill compared to their mountain of mess.
Take a look here:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055948996

I saw that house on the news and it actually doesn't look half bad. It's stone-clad, situated a distance from the road and from what I saw, seems to suit it's surroundings.

The Big Red Button

I haven't seen the house, but it seems to me to be a horrific waste to just knock a perfectly good house like that. Unless it's really badly intruding on the neighbours or whatever. I mean, obviously the owners were completely in the wrong, and maybe the house should be taken off them or something ... but to just knock a big expensive house like that? It doesn't seem right.

ilovesleep

I feel sorry for this man and his family. Surely a prison sentence would do to punish him instead of getting him to demolish his home.
I agree with chatterpillar too. Its a waste to knock such a good house.

John_Rambo

chatterpillar wrote: »

I haven't seen the house, but it seems to me to be a horrific waste to just knock a perfectly good house like that

It's an eyesore, it's imposing. I don't know what architects sign of on these monstrosities, but they are not nice. Not every one likes perfectly manicured lawns, walled and gated houses. I am all for modernisation and moving forward and diversing from traditional Irish cottages and farmhouses while keeping what ones we have, but these American style mansions just look horrible.

elius

I wonder would they be willing too sell it to me. Then i would apply for planning and get the mega mover's you see on sky too up lift it to my plot. :D:D:rolleyes:

I think if they want to keep it they should be made pay 100,000 to meath county council not like they couldn't do with the cash.:rolleyes:

Fiskar

Must be one hell of a plumber - hope he used copper piping rather than Qualpex !
Perhaps he could with his spare time build 3 smaller homes from the massively oversized and un environmentally friendly large one. It is all about recycling.
Was actually woundering where this had gone recently as it was at least 2 years ago they were asked to demolish it.

the_syco

markpb wrote: »

It's scary how people can compare apples and oranges and be still surprised at the results.

It's scarier when people don't get my entire post. Revenue would have a field day for a cash paid house in Dublin. For a cash paid house not in Dublin... maybe not so. If business was good, he may have been able to hoard enough away for the house.

quozl

Huarrah!

I 100% support this. The only thing I'd change is 2 years is a ridiculous amount of time to give them to find a new place. A year is plenty of time to move house!

syklops

Blizzard wrote: »

I can see both sides - yes, planning is there for a reason but I really do feel (and have heard from friends that have gone through this for years) that, if ever you are approved, for many they end up building a house that was not what they planned due to all the stipulations, etc. Then on the flip side, I've heard of a few people who did give a brown envelope to someone or other and, what to do ya know, they get planning for a monstrous house - not in keeping with those in the area.

I know people who've applied for planning and have been rejected, go back to the drawing board and make the changes, submit again only to be rejected and this could go on and on for a number of years - all the while costing them more and more in planning application fees, architect costs, etc. I can see how someone finally took the law into their own hands and figured, f*@k it, I'll just go and build on my own land before the kids turn 18 and leave home. It's absolutely ridiculous. Why own or buy land to build on if you can't or it takes years and years to get it?

Is there any reason why this couple can't have a house where they ended up building? What is the real reason? Obviously it was a bad idea to build one so big. I do think that they should have gotten permission but it appears they went for it several times and no joy and no hope of anything being approved - then what? I don't think I would ever build without permission just for this reason, but it's time someone took a stand.

For the Pat & Mary's out there, we feel for you and all your acres and livestock, but if you really don't want neighbours you'll just have to buy the sites/land as they go up for sale - otherwise anyone with a dream in mind to having a house in the country should be allowed to go for it...without shelling out more money on backhanders to the gangsters in the planning offices around the country.

This is one of the first comments on this matter that I have seen making real sense.

He had applied for planning permission several times before, including for a dormer bungalow. The question really needs to be asked, why was permission for a dormer bungalow rejected? Surely it cant have been because it was too big, out of keeping with the area, etc?

Part of me wonders if he built the big house without permission to draw attention to his planning application history, and to bring under scrutiny the planning office.

Perhaps he could with his spare time build 3 smaller homes from the massively oversized and un environmentally friendly large one.

Whats so environmentally un-friendly about a big house?

If your argument is it takes more fuel to heat, then I will pre-emptively counter-act that and say a well built house, built to standard, which follows guidelines on insulation should be as environmentally sound as a small house. Considering he built it himself, I would put more stock in it being built well than many houses around.

It's an eyesore, it's imposing.

I must be the only person on the internet that thinks it looks well.

As for it being imposing, having grown up in the country, I much prefer a large house surrounded by several acres of fields, to 3 or 4 detached houses built 4 metres from each other clustered on a road. Personally, I find that alot more imposing.

As was said, it has well groomed lawns, is finished well, and I think, looks quite nice.

David09

syklops wrote: »

This is one of the first comments on this matter that I have seen making real sense.

He had applied for planning permission several times before, including for a dormer bungalow. The question really needs to be asked, why was permission for a dormer bungalow rejected? Surely it cant have been because it was too big, out of keeping with the area, etc?

Part of me wonders if he built the big house without permission to draw attention to his planning application history, and to bring under scrutiny the planning office.



Whats so environmentally un-friendly about a big house?

If your argument is it takes more fuel to heat, then I will pre-emptively counter-act that and say a well built house, built to standard, which follows guidelines on insulation should be as environmentally sound as a small house. Considering he built it himself, I would put more stock in it being built well than many houses around.



I must be the only person on the internet that thinks it looks well.

As for it being imposing, having grown up in the country, I much prefer a large house surrounded by several acres of fields, to 3 or 4 detached houses built 4 metres from each other clustered on a road. Personally, I find that alot more imposing.

As was said, it has well groomed lawns, is finished well, and I think, looks quite nice.

+1. You summed it up exactly as I was thinking.

I.S.T.

D3PO wrote: »

dont see how its harsh.

they gave the planning authority the finger and got two fingers back.
good enough for them

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

Good enough for them. Shouldn't have built the house knowing they had no planning permission.

facksake wrote: »

I think they should have to pay a fine on top of paying for the demolition and site clearance but that's just me.

It grinds my gears when people think they are above the law and can do what they want.

Delighted

cgc5483 wrote: »

they built a 6000 sq foot without having planning permission :eek:

What did they think if it was so big they wouldn't dare knock it.

Yeah you only get away with building without planning permission if you are a wealthy developer like Jim Mansfield who can offord to tie the planning authorities up in the courts for years until they give in:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7034837.ece

The other notable feature of Weston was that, as with many Mansfield projects, it flirted with the planning regime. He bought it for €13m in 2000 and began to modernise the dilapidated facility without getting full permission. In May 2005, Weston applied for retention.

The pattern was repeated several times, most notoriously with the enormous conference centre that Mansfield constructed at Citywest. Building had to stop halfway through, and it stood as a shell for several years while a planning and legal battle raged. The venue, which can hold 4,000 people, finally got retention in 2008 and is due to open later this year.

One law for the rich, another for everyone else, or the plumber in this case.

facksake

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Yeah you only get away with building without planning permission if you are a wealthy developer like Jim Mansfield who can offord to tie the planning authorities up in the courts for years until they give in:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7034837.ece



One law for the rich, another for everyone else, or the plumber in this case.

As was said earlier:

D3PO wrote: »

and OJ Simpson got away with murder so its ok for everybody to go and do it then :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

The fact that some people get away with it is a different discussion, it shouldn't affect our opinions on the isolated incident. The man is an idiot who thought he could go ahead and build a mansion without pp and he deserves the demolition order and more imo

whizzbang

If you don't believe in the planning process try spending from time in a country where there is none. *shudders*

syklops

The man is an idiot who thought he could go ahead and build a mansion without pp and he deserves the demolition order and more imo

He was refused planning permission 5 times(and twice his application was 'incomplete'), 4 of which was for a dormer style bungalow with a garage. I really dont think it was a case of him thinking the rules just didnt apply to him. It should also be pointed out that 2 applications were successful, but were marked conditional by the planning office, though I dont know what the conditions were.

After he built the house he made 2 retention requests to demolish part of the house, which were also refused.

These are not the actions of a man who didnt know about planning laws, nor is it the actions of a man who thought 'if I just build it no-one will notice'.

You have to ask, why were 5 applications, 4 for a bungalow rejected?


The fee for a planning application is 65 euro. Including the 2 applications which were 'incomplete', and the 2 which were conditional, he spent a total of 585 euro in application fees, not including architects bills and other sundries. Again, its not like he just built a mansion and hoped no-one would notice.

I am very suspicious about this case. I really am. Hopefully the panel of experts who are investigating the county councils planning offices will get to the bottom of it.

facksake

I never said he didn't know about planning laws, I said he chose to ignore them. I don't care that he got rejected 5 times the law is the law.

Let's say I own a house in a nice little housing estate, all similar houses built at the same time. Let's say I apply for pp to build a bomb shelter in my front garden. It gets rejected 5 times - do you think i'd go ahead and build the damn thing?? Would you feel sorry for me for spending €565 plus architect fees on my applications?? I wouldn't feel sorry for myself tbh.

Now I take your point - In writing it all sounds quite innocent, he applied for a dormer bungalow, so we're assuming it hardly is out of character with the area. I really think we're lacking knowledge of the area itself and so it's hard for us to summise if his original application was keeping with the character of the area. Planning applications can be refused for a number of reasons not just the character issue, and his applications could have been refused, or granted conditional permission for a number of reasons. We're all making too many assumptions into the details of his applications without really knowing the full story.

One part of the story that needs no assumption at all is the fact that he went ahead without pp and built a frickin mansion!! I've said it before and i'll say it again, the man deserves what he got and more

martian1980

syklops wrote: »

He was refused planning permission 5 times(and twice his application was 'incomplete'), 4 of which was for a dormer style bungalow with a garage. I really dont think it was a case of him thinking the rules just didnt apply to him. It should also be pointed out that 2 applications were successful, but were marked conditional by the planning office, though I dont know what the conditions were.

After he built the house he made 2 retention requests to demolish part of the house, which were also refused.

These are not the actions of a man who didnt know about planning laws, nor is it the actions of a man who thought 'if I just build it no-one will notice'.

You have to ask, why were 5 applications, 4 for a bungalow rejected?


The fee for a planning application is 65 euro. Including the 2 applications which were 'incomplete', and the 2 which were conditional, he spent a total of 585 euro in application fees, not including architects bills and other sundries. Again, its not like he just built a mansion and hoped no-one would notice.

I am very suspicious about this case. I really am. Hopefully the panel of experts who are investigating the county councils planning offices will get to the bottom of it.

A permission is deemed incomplete if some of the required documentation has not been submitted - I wouldn't call it a refusal. I was under the impression that a 'conditional' permission means that you have been granted permission, so long as some conditions are adhered to. These could include using a certain type of sewage treatment system or other minor alterations. I wouldn't call conditional permission a refusal either.

comfysofa

Good enough for them.

A guy at home built a bungalow right up against my parent's hedge without planning permission, in a totally inappropriate place, so I feel for the neighbours. No matter how abused the system is it's there for a reason.

In my parent's case the Council "overlooked the paperwork" to bring court proceedings and lost the opportunity to get a demolition order. Perhaps the paperwork was hidden under the brown envelopes littering the desks of Kildare County Council.

whizzbang

whizzbang wrote: »

If you don't believe in the planning process try spending from time in a country where there is none. *shudders*

when it comes to the family home once a few basic rules are followed people should, to be frank, mind their own business and allow others to freely design their own homes! Its this crap that has Ireland with some of the smallest houses in the world. Lego style estates with no crap like "gorgeous living" in Belmayne. Let individuals, couples & families decide what they want to live in and we would instantly produce sustainable properties.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8201900.stm
http://www.demographia.com/db-intlhouse.htm

http://www.finfacts.com/irishfinancenews/article_10004604.shtml
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1016135.shtml

European Housing Review 2009: Ireland has floor areas per person of a fifth less than Western European average

Macha

syklops wrote: »

Whats so environmentally un-friendly about a big house?

If your argument is it takes more fuel to heat, then I will pre-emptively counter-act that and say a well built house, built to standard, which follows guidelines on insulation should be as environmentally sound as a small house. Considering he built it himself, I would put more stock in it being built well than many houses around.

It does take more fuel to heat because you are heating space. More space needs more heat. Yes, it might be more environmentally friendly than other houses around it that were built years ago but a smaller energy efficient house is always going to use less fuel than a larger energy efficient house. Add in the extra materials and fuel used by machinery, the embodied energy in all those matierals, transport etc and it's a no-brainer.

blindjustice - using the existence of shoebox apartments of 30m2 to defend a 560m2 mansion makes no sense.

Fiskar

Most 4 bed detached houses are 1400 Sq feet, this thing is a small church. you could house 4 families in that space. It will cost money to heat no matter what is used as the primary heat source. Yet to hear of a house of that size being cheaper to heat than the 3 bed semi (bench mark).

siucra1991

How is it harsh exactly?

Their application was refused so they went off and built a house twice as big and claimed it was for horses and animal feed?
They got caught rotten,they deserve whats coming to them.

sickofwaiting

syklops wrote: »

I am very suspicious about this case. I really am. Hopefully the panel of experts who are investigating the county councils planning offices will get to the bottom of it.

What is the deal with this panel of experts? Is there a way to contact them regarding suspicious developments? I know of a huge commercial warehouse, a complete and utter eyesore that was built in the middle of an idyllic, quiet, rural countryside setting. It was built without permission but they were allowed to retain it back in 2001, I can only imagine there was a sizeable brown envelope involved as there is no other explanation why retention was awarded to a monstrosity such as this. So is there a way to contact the guys investigation the planning offices? I would like to see whoever granted permission to this development fired or facing fraud charges.

mickoneill30

syklops wrote: »

Surely it cant have been because it was too big, out of keeping with the area, etc?

Why not? I've had planning refused before for little reasons. Once I fixed those reasons it was approved easily enough. Is there any site that shows the reasons, should that info not be public?

syklops wrote: »

Part of me wonders if he built the big house without permission to draw attention to his planning application history, and to bring under scrutiny the planning office.

That's an expensive thing to do. I feel sorry for the guy having to knock his house but what else could the council do. Say "ah sure you ignored us so we'll let you keep the house you built"? Every cowboy in the country would be building McMansions then.

jupiter00

Imagine this huge mansion built in front of your 'ordinary' home, scary isn't it! The amount of people who apply for retentions seems common enough but only for extra windows or smaller changes to the original plan but actually increasing house size to this level is crazy. I'll believe he'll have to knock it down when I see it! The planning laws in this country apply to some but not all, yeah I am a cynical person. I remember years ago when people couldn't get PP, it was suggested that they employ a big local building firm instead of selfbuild and 'you'll get PP no problem' and that was before the boom, but sure cork county council is beyond reproach sure didn't they produce the Rural Housing Guidelines for all the rest of the country to follow!

Idbatterim

The below link puts this story to shame, there was a programme on this a while ago, the articles I have read on it, do it no justice!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510161/Hay-presto-Farmer-unveils-illegal-mock-Tudor-castle-tried-hide-40ft-hay-bales.html