No 1 reason to get planning!!!

No6

I hope this link works!!

http://news.ie.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=153970690

So for all those posters who think its ok to build what they like and then get retention it isnt!!!:eek:

Mellor

Serves them right.
Broke the law, so I have so sympathy for them. 588sq.m, were they having a laugh.

I also don't buy the wife's sob story about wanting a place to raise a family. I'm sure there are 100s of perfectly suitable houses for sale in meath. If they could afford to build a 588sq.m house, they could afford some of the nicest property in the county/country

RKQ

They were very blatant, seem to have the "its my land" attitude.
6229sq ft is excessive.

They broke the law, they knew exactly what they were doing and deserve the Courts decision.:D

If you stick your hand in the fire expect to get burnt!

muffler

I have sympathy for them to the extent that they have now to demolish what is considered to be their family home and obviously the massive financial losses that will be incurred.

However they willfully and defiantly built without planning permission and they really should have known better considering they had been refused permission for a much smaller house.

It should be noted that the site is located on a 23 acre farm which they had bought some time previously.

sydthebeat

muffler wrote: »

I have sympathy for them to the extent that they have now to demolish what is considered to be their family home and obviously the massive financial losses that will be incurred.

However they willfully and defiantly built without planning permission and they really should have known better considering they had been refused permission for a much smaller house.

It should be noted that the site is located on a 23 acre farm which they had bought some time previously.

They are obviously not short of money if they were able to do this without financial loans which required independent signing off.....

if the did require signing off.... gulp!!

muffler

sydthebeat wrote: »

They are obviously not short of money if they were able to do this without financial loans which required independent signing off.....

if the did require signing off.... gulp!!

Yeah, when you can buy a 23 acre farm not far from Navan and build a 588m2 house then there must have been plenty of money in the old plumbing business

I couldn't see any type of certs issued for this as the lending agencies and/or the solicitors would have been aware of the situation and therefore no mortgage was in place.

glanman

this will never get knocked down:

"On humanitarian grounds, and “in light of the particularly hard economic times we live in”, the judge said he would place a two-year stay on the demolition order."

sydthebeat

glanman wrote: »

this will never get knocked down:

"On humanitarian grounds, and “in light of the particularly hard economic times we live in”, the judge said he would place a two-year stay on the demolition order."

of course it will......

they now have a high court order to demolish, albeit with a two year stay....

they can only go to the supreme court and argue about points of law.

In two years time this dwelling will be demolished, if it hasnt been burned down in the mean time

imitation

Thats madness, It must have cost them at least 350,000 to build something of that size, and now its all gotta come down. It also looks like planning laws are going to get stricter, so I wouldnt hold out much hope of them keeping it.

danbohan

imitation wrote: »

Thats madness, It must have cost them at least 350,000 to build something of that size, and now its all gotta come down. It also looks like planning laws are going to get stricter, so I wouldnt hold out much hope of them keeping it.

350k be very conservative for that house and fit out , more in region 450k + id imagine , planning is becoming a major problem in rural ireland and will have to be sorted out , removing the greens from goverment would be good first step

BenK

This should nearly be a sticky to put off any would be planning offenders in the future! I have absolutely no sympathy for these people.

It was "in desperation" they decided to proceed and build this house and their only motive was to secure a safe and nice place in which to bring up their children.

Desperation, yeah right, pull the other one...

beyondpassive

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

I'm off to become a plumber.......

sydthebeat

beyondpassive wrote: »

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

I'm off to become a plumber.......

If THEY are frustrated with the planning system, i should be allowed concrete the Phoenix Park!!!!!!!!

beyondpassive

danbohan wrote: »

planning is becoming a major problem in rural ireland and will have to be sorted out , removing the greens from government would be good first step

The problem isn't 'planning', its the lack of planning. This is generally due to FF using rural housing policy as a political tool to empowere local representatives, and give the impression that the power to grant planning is in the hands of TD's and Planners. Its those of us who support the likes of Mattie McGrath and the Healy Rae's and remember aul Bertie, who are voting to keep the malaise and inertia in our political system, ensuring that parochial single issues like the right to chase a farmed deer into schools is more important than cervical vaccinations for instance. Its no wonder the country is on its knees when our national politicians are of this quality.

It is simply not sustainable to have an ad-hoc approach to locating urban generated housing in dispersed patterns far from services.

The Green party is mandated to developing a functional planning system which supports vibrant communities particularly in rural areas. Are people afraid of the boogeyman green party, because they don't play along with the cronyism and the 'ah sure it'll be grand attitude.'.

The greens at least have policies, and policies which have an eye to the future, like what happens the countryside after 2013 when CAP ends?

danbohan

beyondpassive wrote: »

The problem isn't 'planning', its the lack of planning. This is generally due to FF using rural housing policy as a political tool to empowere local representatives, and give the impression that the power to grant planning is in the hands of TD's and Planners. Its those of us who support the likes of Mattie McGrath and the Healy Rae's and remember aul Bertie, who are voting to keep the malaise and inertia in our political system, ensuring that parochial single issues like the right to chase a farmed deer into schools is more important than cervical vaccinations for instance. Its no wonder the country is on its knees when our national politicians are of this quality.

It is simply not sustainable to have an ad-hoc approach to locating urban generated housing in dispersed patterns far from services.

The Green party is mandated to developing a functional planning system which supports vibrant communities particularly in rural areas. Are people afraid of the boogeyman green party, because they don't play along with the cronyism and the 'ah sure it'll be grand attitude.'.

The greens at least have policies, and policies which have an eye to the future, like what happens the countryside after 2013 when CAP ends?

the greens are mandated by 2% of population , hardly an endorsement , they will be gone soon and proper planning can be once again reinstated , what happens in the countryside should be decided by those who live in the countryside , urban dwellers should have no input

Bitten & Hisses

beyondpassive wrote: »

The problem isn't 'planning', its the lack of planning.

Not to mention the lack of consistency between local authorities and between individual planners. Why there can't be a simple list of do's and don'ts for an area is beyond me.

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

Serves them right.
588sq.m, were they having a laugh.

RKQ wrote: »

They were very blatant, seem to have the "its my land" attitude.
6229sq ft is excessive.

Slightly off topic but these kind of attitudes are why 2,000 or 3,000 sq ft are rare in Ireland here thats considered a mansion abroad thats a normal home.
Its why we all live in ****boxes

beyondpassive wrote: »

The problem isn't 'planning', its the lack of planning.

If there were more exemptions and less strict planning towards the design of your home we would be better off, location is a different issue, but some at the moment clowns in some office are deciding the kind of place someone will live in for the rest of their lives. Madness.

beyondpassive

This is one reason the planning system is so messed up.

http://www.irishspatialstrategy.ie/Rural%20Planning%20Guidelines%2013505.pdf

how can any 'clown in an office' have consistency when this is your guidance. This isn't an urban v rural issue, we're all urban now anyway. Our traditional Politics intentionally creates vagueness, so we elect the local estate agent as councillor and local publican as national representative. The political system can only create more layers of confusion and conflicting policies.

There needs to be a firm policy for (not against) one off housing, it needs to be located where it can be a positive influence. Until that policy is devised it will continue to be a divisive an emotive issue, perfect to reap political capital from the bumpkits of middle ireland to get upset and ring joe, when anything challenges the wink and a nod culture.

paddy147

That field and site will be useless now though,it will never go back to what it used to be.So its pointless to knock it down.

Instead of putting the family out on the streets,why not let the house stay and hit them with a big fine and a suspended sentence instead?

Its not like he built the house right next door to another house and he is blocking out light or looking intop some one elses front room.

I actually feel for this chap and his family,in the way they got messed around by Meath CC so many times in the past.

Pictures of the house and full story in the SUN newspaper.

rayjdav

But Paddy,

By reading between the lines here, a fine, no matter how big, would appear, imho, to be just a light slap on the wrist to anyone who, allegedly, by all accounts, built for cash. Suspended sentence same.

Basically, black and white, the law of the land was totally disregarded here and there must be consequence. This was done eyes wide open.

It is a sad situation but all planning laws, no matter how frustrated they were, like most applicants going through the system, and agents to boot, were ignored and CANNOT be let away with their actions. It would just set precedent and leave the countryside open to dreadful Southforlk type development and retention applications... Not an option..

rayjdav

rayjdav wrote: »

leave the countryside open to dreadful Southforlk type development

who is anyone to tell another what style of home they should live in?
Once a few basic rules are adhered to everyone should mind their own business

sydthebeat

rayjdav wrote: »

................
Basically, black and white, the law of the land was totally disregarded here
............

even worse, it was totally REGARDED and then consiously and delibrately treated with utmost contempt......

no sympathy at all from me... every one has to deal with the system as it stands, with all its frustrations.... no one is above it

No6

I didn't intend this post to become a debate on the greens and rural housing but Ifirmly believe that they would if they could ban all forms of one off rural housing anywhere except in very stringent family housing need cases (just so they could say they havnt banned it!!) I agree they should be spending more time on serious issues like the state of the econmy rather than banning stag hunting, attempting to make fox hunting (with hounds) difficlut / more expensive through the breeding dogs bill and whatever other crazy animal rights issues their extreme wing can dream up. It seriously diminishes from their I do believe genuine efforts to tackle climate change which is in fairness even more important the the state of our little economy but they will get the hammering they deserve along with fiana fail whever they actually have to call an election. and finally can anyone explain to me how a one off rural house (even a 7000 sq ft one) which is occupied is in any way less sustainable than all those ghost estate houses and apartment block which are I believe serviced and are considered sustainable even though we have had to spend billions to bail out the bank by buying them off them and are now waiting for Nama to decide which ones to demolish!!! Boll**ks.

I have however no sympathy for the people involved who have to demolish their house, they had more money than sense and wouldn't take no for an answer, they wanted they got, and now they demolish!!

paddy147

They dont have to demolish for 2 years.

the judge put a 24 month/2 year stay on the demolition.

I wonder if they can they appeal the court decision to try and save the house??

No6

paddy147 wrote: »

They dont have to demolish for 2 years.

the judge put a 24 month/2 year stay on the demolition.

I wonder if they can they appeal the court decision to try and save the house??

I am sure if they have loads of money they can appeal to the supreme court and then perhaps europe!! theres another ten years anyway!!!

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

even worse, it was totally REGARDED and then consiously and delibrately treated with utmost contempt......

no sympathy at all from me... every one has to deal with the system as it stands, with all its frustrations.... no one is above it

my problem is that nobody wants to tackle the system which has a huge impact on our quality of life, everyone is "ah F** em" yada yada

beyondpassive

No6 wrote: »

can anyone explain to me how a one off rural house (even a 7000 sq ft one) which is occupied is in any way less sustainable than all those ghost estate houses and apartment block which are I believe serviced and are considered sustainable even though we have had to spend billions to bail out the bank by buying them off them and are now waiting for Nama to decide which ones to demolish!!! Boll**ks.

There is nothing sustainable about homogonous single typeology housing estates, however that is the only choice at the moment because the Kenny report in the 70's was ignored by your Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. The result is that the price of land after its been zoned and flipped twice or three times, can't support proper choice. In most countries most of the rezoning value goes back to the council and to services and the land is sold fully serviced with facilities and integrated transport to individuals or housing associations, not the precious few well connected 'golden circle'. Why is it that anyone who looks for better standards is shot down as a muesli eating, D4 liberal, anti horseracing fanatic.

What if everyone who wanted to, and we all want to, built a one off in the country, like 2004, 40,000 units one ofs in one year, would we have communities, villages, towns. What happens society when everyone puts up gates and looks after me fein. Who takes the under 12's, who nips antisocial behaviour in the bud, who builds public institutions. Its now about 'look after no. 1' and support a politician that looks after the parish or the local developer or Rise or the rural dwellers association or Sean Quinn who gambled his cash cow's reserves and ruined Cavan.

Its all a mute argument because, europe won't let us do what is politically expedient, it dosent want us to pollute 'europes' groundwater, the water framework, habits and nitrates directives can't tolerate ribbons of single plot anerobic single stage waste treatment plants (septic tanks). So lets not whinge about the greens lets come up with a plan to stimulate the rural communities and meet the housing demand in sensible locations. We tried soft touch regulation recently and we're paying for it now. But you know what'll happen, next election we'll vote for the same again in maybe a bluer coloured shirt and things'll get worse, there'll be no greens to blame this time and we'll still focus on parish pump issues and ring joe duffy and the biggest issue in the land will be why every field can't have its bungalow, thats our constitutional right. No.6 can't you see its not about a single issue, climate change, its all connected. Our lack of fresh water and peak oil will kill us before that. The green movement is about improving quality of life, don't get hung up on a few bitches. Look at the bigger picture, look whats coming down the tracks.

The lunatics really do run this institution, my own parish voted for Mattie Mcgrath, oh the shame. When s the revolution due?

muffler

Ok then, we have heard enough of the off topic rants. By all means feel free to start a new thread on planning issues in general.

Anyone else wishing to contribute to the thread will need to stay on topic.

Cheers.

Mellor

glanman wrote: »

this will never get knocked down:

"On humanitarian grounds, and “in light of the particularly hard economic times we live in”, the judge said he would place a two-year stay on the demolition order."

2 years is not never.
A sumpreme court appeal is the next course. They have little chance of appeal.

Deleted User wrote: »

Slightly off topic but these kind of attitudes are why 2,000 or 3,000 sq ft are rare in Ireland here thats considered a mansion abroad thats a normal home.
Its why we all live in ****boxes

I'm sorry but please don't quote me or anyother poster out of context.

For a start, the house wasn't 2k or 3k sq ft, it was over 6k. And my comments didn't refer to houses of that size (which I am fine with as long as they are suitable for the site and applicants), they refered to the fact that they built such a house WITHOUT PLANNING and then LIED IN COURT ABOUT IT.

archtech

I have to say I have no sympathy for the individuals. They knew where the planning authority stood on the matter before they went ahead and built the house. As the saying goes, life by the sword, die by the sword.

sydthebeat

Mellor wrote: »

A sumpreme court appeal is the next course. They have little chance of appeal.
.

the supreme court can only adjudicate on matters of law ie was the law upheld propserly in the decision, it cannot change the decision......

i cant see teh judge granting leave to appeal.... for teh sam ereason as above...

so off to europe with them... and see THEY consider breaches of planning law!!!

RKQ

These people knew the consequences of their actions but went ahead anyway. It was premeditated - they assumed the Judge would pity them. They were wrong, they got the verdict they deserved. The sooner the house is demolished the better, so people don't act so foolishly in future.

The law is the law. It is there for every citizen without exception. Like it or not we must all obey the law of the land.

Demolition of unauthorised structures is very important and very necessary. It happens regularly in the UK.

If you break the law then you must expect to pay the price. I have no pity for these people, they put their two fingers up to the Council, ABP and all planning law, so the Judge had no alternative but to uphold our law.

Mellor

sydthebeat wrote: »

the supreme court can only adjudicate on matters of law ie was the law upheld propserly in the decision, it cannot change the decision......

i cant see teh judge granting leave to appeal.... for teh sam ereason as above...

so off to europe with them... and see THEY consider breaches of planning law!!!

Oh, I know they'd never get any other outcome, was just pointing out an option if they feel like throwing away more money

imitation

This has to be enforced really. I feel for anybody going through the planning process for a one off, its not easy and its not a fair sensible system either. But on the other hand, if there is little or nothing stopping people from plonking houses anywhere then thats what will happen. Imagine if more people had caught wind of this during the boom years, there would be horrible mcmansions plonked all over scenic spots. Then again.. some might say there already are.

mendel

Whatever we might think of the planning laws, i concur that you just can't take the law into your own hands and build what many would consider a small hotel!!

I wonder will the revenue get interested in what seems to have been a cash build.............

No6

But I will say in all fairness the planners when discussing rural planning persistantly make guide lines and refer to certain styles of houses which were all built prior to 1963, so in essence everything was fine before in the countryside before planning was invented it was only after it arrived we had bungalow bliss, 80's crap, 90's whatever and the celtic tiger 00's which were all presided over by a planning system that hasn't worked for anybody and to my mind played a huge part in inflating the property bubble. So maybe the 7000 sq ft house is what people who had the money & lived in the countryside would be building without planning!!! Perhaps they could appeal to the european court of human rights on the basis that planning is a form of oppression:D

Poor Uncle Tom

No6 wrote: »

So maybe the 7000 sq ft house is what people who had the money & lived in the countryside would be building without planning!!!

I was thinking along those lines myself during the last few days.

Pre 1963 there was F all money in the country and people built what they could afford, in my family's case the stone from an old forge was used to extend the house when it was needed, needs must and all that. There was no luxurious designs or inclusions of contemplative spaces or considerations for the interactive play of light and space . Thank God, those days are gone.

My point is that now that we are out of those times, who is there to protect the 'fool with money' from himself. Surely the term Building Control should have some play here, after all if there had been early intervention an entire family needn't suffer at the hands of one bufoon.

Anyway, back on topic, the house should not be allowed stay in it's current form, imo.

sinnerboy

This is where we would be without planning controls






Time to fire up the 'dozer

Poor Uncle Tom

Down town Drumcondra, the perks of being in Berties back yard.....:D

beyondpassive

Looks like Bundoran

muffler

beyondpassive wrote: »

Looks like Bundoran

Watch it :pac:

No6

sinnerboy wrote: »

This is where we would be without planning controls






Time to fire up the 'dozer

but do you not think is a rather cute vernacular style that you should consider bringing elements of into you design!!!:D

RKQ

One of the largest slums in India is regularly studied by Architects & Planners from all over the world. They are trying to understand how these communities survive, interact, wash, eat, cook, educate and live so closey with zero crime.

The visual look of these slums is more to do with the use of free, recycled or cheap materials rather that wealth, free choice or beauty.

Without the current Planning system, One off houses in Ireland would consist of two types The indigenous Rural & the Urban escapist.

"The indegenous Rural" dweller would like to impress his neighbours - bigger is better - probably mock Georgian to reflect high land prices of the Tiger era. The new Landlord class.:D

While The Urban Escapist, grateful to escape urban sprawl, lusting after simpler times and eager to be accepted by the locals would build a dormer - victorian cottage look complete with white picket fence. Romantic & nostalgic.

HavingCrack

As a town planning student and as a person with anarchist political leanings I can really see both sides of the fence here. I feel really sorry for these people and I really do think if you own the land who are the government to tell you what you can and can't do. However I also realise the rural areas are capable of being destroyed by uncontrolled development. I still can't really make my mind up

On this particular issue though they got refused planning permission for a hosue half the size and went ahead and built it anyway which was fairly stupid-surely they must have realised they'd probably be caught out eventually?!??