Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Court orders demolition of family home.

  • 29-06-2010 6:29pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    "The High Court has ordered the demolition within two years of the two-storey home of a couple and their three children in Co Meath built by them after Meath County Council refused planning permission for a house half its size.

    Michael and Rose Murray, who have lived in the house at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, near Navan, since December 2006, had pleaded against the demolition order".


    If I were him I would walk away from it and let the travellers move in, he was refused planning before on the same site for a house half that size. land without planning permission wouldn't be worth a fcuk and would cost heaps to knock it and clear the rubble.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0629/breaking42.html


«1345

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Sulmac


    Did they think they were above the law or something?

    Level of sympathy = zero.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    the council became aware a large house of some 588 square metres (6,229 sq feet) had been built on the lands and the Murrays were living there
    “a very large and imposing stone clad two-storey dwelling house with a curved drive leading up to it and extensive laws in front of it”

    Tough.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,349 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    Why did he build it when he was refused permission? Staggering arrogance.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭mariaf24


    I know what they did was wrong but I feel very sorry for them. It's a bit unfair and such a waste of a house. We put up with terrible crap with planning when we were building our home so I can understand their frustration.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 269 ✭✭The Shtig


    I don't feel sorry for the eeejit that decides to go ahead building the house even though he was refused but i do feel sorry for the children having to suffer from the stupidity of their parents.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Sulmac wrote: »
    Did they think they were above the law or something?

    Level of sympathy = zero.

    Sometimes the law can be an ass. :p


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    My thoughts are the same as those re. the guy in Britain who built a castle covertly and was then told to knock it down.

    i.e. no sympathy.

    If you're refused planning permission and then go ahead and build something twice the size as those refused plans, you're just goading for trouble.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,445 ✭✭✭Absurdum


    mariaf24 wrote: »
    It's a bit unfair and such a waste of a house.

    and it's all their own fault LOL


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    Sometimes the law can be an ass. :p

    And quite often those who break the law are asses too.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,178 ✭✭✭Bob the Seducer


    I'm not sure at what point "turned down planning for a house on this site... to hell with it I'll build one twice as big!" could ever have seemed like a good idea.

    This isn't the first time this has happened.

    Lesson: if you don't get permission, don't build it, if you really want to waste your money have a bonfire with it instead.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,537 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    I bet the reasoning was build it anyway and apply for retention.

    Its a waste of a house thats probably much better built that a lot of the ****e around but I have zero sympathy for the guy

    Of course, it'll be appealed upwards and not have to be knocked in the end...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    The Shtig wrote: »
    I don't feel sorry for the eeejit that decides to go ahead building the house even though he was refused but i do feel sorry for the children having to suffer from the stupidity of their parents.

    Every kid has to suffer from the stupidity of their parents. Such is life!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Court orders demolition of family home House.

    Fixed your thread Title..............

    If I were him I would walk away from it and let the travellers move in
    Not a bad idea on paper but ultimately.........
    and without planning permission wouldn't be worth a fcuk and would cost heaps to knock it and clear the rubble.
    Which I believe he can be held liable for if the council end up doing the work.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭The Davestator


    I dont understand how you can have zero sympathy for a family having to demolish their home?:confused:

    Yes, he was stupid, but a sizeable charity donation or community service would serve more purpose than the cost of knocking it down etc.

    There's far bigger crooks in this counrty than this fella who are getting away with a lot worse...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭mariaf24


    Again,I do have sympathy for anyone with 3 children who will have to knock their family home. I would consider that very traumatising for children. Surely a severe fine or something else could have been done.
    On another note, I always believed that in order to get ESB you needed to prove planning permission? I would agree that the only way they built it was with applying for retention in mind.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Sulmac


    I dont understand how you can have zero sympathy for a family having to demolish their home?:confused:

    Yes, he was stupid, but a sizeable charity donation or community service would serve more purpose than the cost of knocking it down etc.

    There's far bigger crooks in this counrty than this fella who are getting away with a lot worse...

    If they let them get away with it, it would set a precedent whereby anyone who wanted to could build a house anywhere if they could afford a fine/donation or had the time for community service.

    It's a classic "floodgates" argument.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,178 ✭✭✭Bob the Seducer


    Building without permission is breaking the law, sticking two fingers up to the law by building a structure twice the size of the one you got turned down for doesn't score you bonus points in court.
    Refusing to comply with a court order to demolish can result in this. It doesn't matter if it's a house or a shed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Sulmac wrote: »
    If they let them get away with it, it would set a precedent whereby anyone who wanted to could build a house anywhere if they could afford a fine/donation or had the time for community service.

    It's a classic "floodgates" argument.

    With the state of the economy and so many vacant houses in the country It would be more a trickle than a floodgate.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭mariaf24


    I can't understand why a decent family who want to build a home and pay a mortgage face such ridiculous planning restrictions in the first place.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    I dont understand how you can have zero sympathy for a family having to demolish their home?:confused:

    Yes, he was stupid, but a sizeable charity donation or community service would serve more purpose than the cost of knocking it down etc.

    There's far bigger crooks in this counrty than this fella who are getting away with a lot worse...

    Maybe it will stop people from doing it in future? Why should people get away with a fine just because there is worse laws being broken. Its their own fault, they only did it because they thought they would get away with it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    mariaf24 wrote: »
    I can't understand why a decent family who want to build a home and pay a mortgage face such ridiculous planning restrictions in the first place.

    Yes we should just build where ever the hell we like.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭saltandpepper10


    who would go in and knock this house?they would want to be very stuck for a days wages.i live not too far away from this house and my own belief is it will never be demolished,he locals will do everything in there power to frustrate demolition work commencing


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    mariaf24 wrote: »
    I can't understand why a decent family
    Know them personally do we ?
    mariaf24 wrote: »
    who want to build a home and pay a mortgage face such ridiculous planning restrictions in the first place.
    Thats right. Just let people build anywhere. See how well that works out
    who would go in and knock this house? they would want to be very stuck for a days wages
    400,000-odd people spring to mind.........


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    mariaf24 wrote: »
    I can't understand why a decent family who want to build a home and pay a mortgage face such ridiculous planning restrictions in the first place.

    Why? Because decency & the ability to get a bank loan should be the only obstructions to building whatever the hell you like?

    Nice logic.


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Carlos Ugly Jelly


    mariaf24 wrote: »
    I can't understand why a decent family who want to build a home and pay a mortgage face such ridiculous planning restrictions in the first place.

    There's nothing 'decent' about being pricks and breaking the restrictions by building a house TWICE THE SIZE. That's a serious "f*k you" if ever I heard one.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭mariaf24


    Yes we should just build where ever the hell we like.

    I meant general restrictions, i have a list here, to the size of our kitchen windows to the distance from the door to the stairs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    mariaf24 wrote: »
    I can't understand why a decent family who want to build a home and pay a mortgage face such ridiculous planning restrictions in the first place.
    According to 6/1 news he is currently barely able to find work and was given 2 years to remove the property. The state will probably end up having to house himand his family at taxpayers expense.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    mariaf24 wrote: »
    I meant general restrictions, i have a list here, to the size of our kitchen windows to the distance from the door to the stairs.

    Sounds like a big list. I hope you have planning for that. ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,229 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Perhaps the brown envelope didn't have enough cash in it. It's always a problem knowing how much to give them. You win some, you lose some.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    . The state will probably end up having to house himand his family at taxpayers expense.

    Unless it can be deemed that they made themselves homeless...............


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭mariaf24


    I am just saying that we have been through it and it is very very frustrating. I am not agreeing with what they did.
    And like the OP said,they will probably now need to be re-homed by the council at the taxpayers expense.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    mariaf24 wrote: »
    I meant general restrictions, i have a list here, to the size of our kitchen windows to the distance from the door to the stairs.

    have you seen the house in question? its dreadful no wonder it was refused.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭mariaf24


    have you seen the house in question? its dreadful no wonder it was refused.

    Yes, saw it briefly on the news.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭Gunsfortoys


    At least it will create a few construction jobs.;)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,547 ✭✭✭✭Poor Uncle Tom


    At least it will create a few construction jobs.;)

    Demolition jobs...;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7 TimberMerchant


    I totally agree it should be taken down, i spent 2 years looking for planning, and also what about council contributions which he would not of paid either. I know the rip off large sum i had to pay. (And building the house twice the original size was the real 2 finger salute!) I note An Bord Pleanala also turned him down.:rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    I totally agree it should be taken down, i spent 2 years looking for planning, and also what about council contributions which he would not of paid either. I know the rip off large sum i had to pay. (And building the house twice the original size was the real 2 finger salute!) I note An Bord Pleanala also turned him down.:rolleyes:

    Exactly, everyone else has to go through the hassle but somehow this guy thinks he is above it and then people feel sorry for him.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭reprazant


    mariaf24 wrote: »
    I meant general restrictions, i have a list here, to the size of our kitchen windows to the distance from the door to the stairs.

    They are now in place due to the horrific dynasty style houses that people used to build.

    Now, the houses have to be in keeping with the surrounding areas.

    I have no sympathy for him at all and I cannot believe that people are saying that the house should not be thorn down.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭snubbleste


    I don't get why the media are referring to this as a family home rather than an illegally constructed building.
    Is rté biased? :cool:


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,591 ✭✭✭RATM


    who would go in and knock this house?they would want to be very stuck for a days wages.i live not too far away from this house and my own belief is it will never be demolished,he locals will do everything in there power to frustrate demolition work commencing

    So now you condone the homeowners law breaking by conducting some law breaking of your own, ie acting to prevent a court order to be carried out. Any local who tries to impede demolition efforts will be held in contempt of court and imprisoned. And rightly so.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭snubbleste


    The humble abode constructed by a poor working man to house his family

    http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/192/bungalownoppvb9.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,547 ✭✭✭✭Poor Uncle Tom


    snubbleste wrote: »
    I don't get why the media are referring to this as a family home rather than an illegally constructed building.
    Is rté biased? :cool:

    That's just to put a sympathetic angle on the story. This tool went outside the laws, he didn't just build a house without planning permission, he applied for permission for a house and when he was refused he stuck two fingers up at the system and built a house twice the size. Was he thinking about his family then? How did he actually fund this build? He couldn't have had a mortgage as planning permission would have been needed. Did he think that because he had the money he could do what he wanted?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Down in Kerry I saw a house which was specified in the planning application as a one and a half storey house, but when built it is clearly a 2 storey house. It's built in a rural area and looks like a town house. Very out of character with the area.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 265 ✭✭joewicklow


    snubbleste wrote: »
    The humble abode constructed by a poor working man to house his family

    http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/192/bungalownoppvb9.jpg

    Thats unreal. How do the 3 kids not get lost?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,966 ✭✭✭JDxtra


    He has built on shaky foundations and now the whole thing will come down. Its a very expensive lesson.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    snubbleste wrote: »
    I don't get why the media are referring to this as a family home rather than an illegally constructed building.
    Is rté biased? :cool:
    The family home would be the property that he and his family would be currently living in.

    This would be opposed to investment and other properties.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭laugh


    Big balcony over the front door, fuckin JR Ewing style.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭laugh


    joewicklow wrote: »
    Thats unreal. How do the 3 kids not get lost?

    iphones with gps Joe.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    I don't think it should be demolished. Instead, there should be explosives put under it & webcams all around it. When enough people click on the "explode" button, say 150,000, it should be blown to high heavens.

    The website could be called www.FarewellToTheCelticTigerHouse.com


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement