Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

paul71

Widdensushi wrote: »

Meath is a big county but that travel seems excessive? They also must have a different healthsystem there as I recall getting the option of a home visit for a newborn but after that it was go to them, an post don't deliver to me, if they did I would have to have a post box on their route, who pissed in your cornflakes with misinformation

When you get to your seventies and eighties you will likely at some stage require a weekly visit from a public health nurse, daily if you are in palative cancer care, and 3 visits a week from a home help. When people point out the cost of this to you and propose a reduction of the service you will be pissing in your cornflakes.

Mellor

Muahahaha wrote: »

Hard to believe they got quoted 300k to demolish it.

Probably because they didn't actually get quote 300k

partyguinness wrote: »

There are too many Me Feiners and Pen pushers stuck in cushy Council jobs up and down the country. They have zero appetite for a fight. Why should they. No skin off their noses.

Zero appetite for a fight?
They fought it all the way to the supreme court. At which point did they not fight it?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Beautiful house. Our draconian planning laws are just far too restrictive and you have to take the piss to get anything nice built.

that house is an absolute dream. Would love to prop up a 4000 sq ft house with a detached 3-4 bay garage and office, Kildare co co will never allow me though.

To each their own, taste is subjective obvious. But from a design point of view the house is pretty bad fundamentally. The scale or it, or lack of scale in some cases, is possibly hard to convey in photos. But I'd be pretty sure there there was no professional involved in the design. In was built quickly and cheaply in a few months, and it shows.
Even the retention applications where cobbled together with a random engineer - more likely a contractor who could do a bit of drawing.

rn

@paul71 you've a serious chip on your shoulder based on anecdotal evidence. Esb networks connection charge covers connection costs in most incidents. Same for Irish water. Both easily made a profit connecting mine. Health in a rural setting would have same travel costs even if everyone was in a village, because of the distance between villages and randomised nature of locations of people needing care.

I paid 3k to esb networks to bring a cable 200m with 2 poles. About 1/2 day for a crew and materials. A new 28ft esb pole is around 100 euro. I paid Irish water 1.5k to dig a hole and install a connection, immediately beside my neighbours. 2 hours work and a pipe T plus plastic ground man hole.

ronivek

Out of interest I contacted Meath Co. Co. and they confirmed they're in the middle of enforcement proceedings against the Murrays for breach of the Supreme Court's Judgement.

whisky_galore

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Beautiful house. Our draconian planning laws are just far too restrictive and you have to take the piss to get anything nice built.

We should massively de-regulate planning. If you want to live in a one off you should be allowed to once you realise that you're not allowed lobby the council for footpaths, street lighting, schools, school busses etc...

that house is an absolute dream. Would love to prop up a 4000 sq ft house with a detached 3-4 bay garage and office, Kildare co co will never allow me though.

Beautiful?
Stevie Wonder must have been the architect.

Bullocks

rn wrote: »

@paul71 you've a serious chip on your shoulder based on anecdotal evidence. Esb networks connection charge covers connection costs in most incidents. Same for Irish water. Both easily made a profit connecting mine. Health in a rural setting would have same travel costs even if everyone was in a village, because of the distance between villages and randomised nature of locations of people needing care.

I paid 3k to esb networks to bring a cable 200m with 2 poles. About 1/2 day for a crew and materials. A new 28ft esb pole is around 100 euro. I paid Irish water 1.5k to dig a hole and install a connection, immediately beside my neighbours. 2 hours work and a pipe T plus plastic ground man hole.

Are you sure you can get a 28' ESB pole for €100? I seriously doubt it

ronivek

ronivek wrote: »

Out of interest I contacted Meath Co. Co. and they confirmed they're in the middle of enforcement proceedings against the Murrays for breach of the Supreme Court's Judgement.

naturally enough but people here wanted the mob with pitchforks

runawaybishop

Bullocks wrote: »

Are you sure you can get a 28' ESB pole for €100? I seriously doubt it

you can, used for fencing a lot.

Mellor

runawaybishop wrote: »

you can, used for fencing a lot.

A 28' fence :D:D

CrankyHaus

Mellor wrote: »

A 28' fence?

For serious breeders who give their cattle plenty of Angel Dust.

runawaybishop

Mellor wrote: »

A 28' fence :D:D

Why do you think you never see Giraffes roaming about?:pac:

Farmers cut them and use them for strainers.

StackSteevens

ronivek wrote: »

Out of interest I contacted Meath Co. Co. and they confirmed they're in the middle of enforcement proceedings against the Murrays for breach of the Supreme Court's Judgement.

Thanks for that.

Good to know that, a mere 26 months after the deadline for demolition specified by the Supreme Court passed, they're half way through writing an angry letter to the Murrays!

bladespin

StackSteevens wrote: »

Thanks for that.

Good to know that, a mere 26 months after the deadline for demolition specified by the Supreme Court passed, they're half way through writing an angry letter to the Murrays!

Surely it's now up to the courts etc to ensure the judgement is carried out and not down to the council?

Just wondering.

Mellor

StackSteevens wrote: »

Thanks for that.

Good to know that, a mere 26 months after the deadline for demolition specified by the Supreme Court passed, they're half way through writing an angry letter to the Murrays!

Just out of curiosity.
What would you have expected council to do?

listermint

Mellor wrote: »

Just out of curiosity.
What would you have expected council to do?

no idea, commence proceedings to carry out the judgement ? or who is that down to.

Mellor

listermint wrote: »

no idea, commence proceedings to carry out the judgement ? or who is that down to.

The court ordered the Murrays to demolish their house. At this point it’s on them.

As much as the house us forfeit, the council stop can’t just trespass on the property with a bulldozer and level it.

listermint

Mellor wrote: »

The court ordered the Murrays to demolish their house. At this point it’s on them.

As much as the house us forfeit, the council stop can’t just trespass on the property with a bulldozer and level it.

So whats the next steps then ? enforcement surely is and how can they not 'trespass' ?

Donald Trump

Mellor wrote: »

The court ordered the Murrays to demolish their house. At this point it’s on them.

As much as the house us forfeit, the council stop can’t just trespass on the property with a bulldozer and level it.

Of course they could - although perhaps they might have to get some court order to do it but that would be a formality.



But why should they? They just need to take the owners back to court for contempt of court for not doing it. They can then be held until they purge that contempt.

Mellor

listermint wrote: »

So whats the next steps then ? enforcement surely is and how can they not 'trespass' ?

The council have no power or right to enforce the judgement.

The next steps would be to obtain that power.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Of course they could - although perhaps they might have to get some court order to do it but that would be a formality.

But why should they? They just need to take the owners back to court for contempt of court for not doing it. They can then be held until they purge that contempt.

But they don’t have this court order, so they in fact couldn’t do anything to the house.

If may be a formality to get an order, but it’s also going to take time, And another hearing. I imagine that’s the point they are at now.

Donald Trump

Mellor wrote: »

The council have no power or right to enforce the judgement.

The next steps would be to obtain that power.


But they don’t have this court order, so they in fact couldn’t do anything to the house.

If may be a formality to get an order, but it’s also going to take time, And another hearing. I imagine that’s the point they are at now.

The council should not be bulldozing it unless they plan on sending the owners the bill afterwards. The owners were told to do it, so if they don't it should be a simple visit to the court to have them declared in contempt.

StackSteevens

Mellor wrote: »

Just out of curiosity.
What would you have expected council to do?

My expectation would have been that, very soon after the Supreme Court's deadline had expired, Meath County Council would have applied to the High Court to have Murray jailed for contempt of court.


Edit - here's a link to a story about another genius who disregarded a Court Order. The woman spent over 100 days in jail before it dawned on her that ignoring a Court directive isn't the wisest course of action. If Meath Co Co had gone to court two years ago, then by now either Murray would be living in a mobile home or he'd still be in prison.

chooseusername

Arn't the " New Land League" and yer man Beadle or whatever he's called
involved yet?

paul71

rn wrote: »

@paul71 you've a serious chip on your shoulder based on anecdotal evidence. Esb networks connection charge covers connection costs in most incidents. Same for Irish water. Both easily made a profit connecting mine. Health in a rural setting would have same travel costs even if everyone was in a village, because of the distance between villages and randomised nature of locations of people needing care.

I paid 3k to esb networks to bring a cable 200m with 2 poles. About 1/2 day for a crew and materials. A new 28ft esb pole is around 100 euro. I paid Irish water 1.5k to dig a hole and install a connection, immediately beside my neighbours. 2 hours work and a pipe T plus plastic ground man hole.

The Village of Sumerhill has 150 to 250 households, the 8km radius around the village probably has in excess of 400 households. The village has it electricity supply serviced by a few dozen kms of cabling. The surrounding rural area is serviced by several thousand kilometers. The poles and cables are serviced 3 to 4 times a year. The cost of supply to village compared to the rural areas is therefore a factor of the lenght of the network divided by the number of customers. Maths for 9 year I would suggest. This is repeated in every village in Meath and the same formula applies to all services.

I dont have a chip on my shoulder. I am presenting simple plain fact. Those facts do not suit the agenda of people planners/politicians/owners who decided to blight our economy and landscape with an unsustainable settlement pattern.

Why does not suit them, because they realise that they are being subsidised by the rest of society.

listermint

paul71 wrote: »

The Village of Sumerhill has 150 to 250 households, the 8km radius around the village probably has in excess of 400 households. The village has it electricity supply serviced by a few dozen kms of cabling. The surrounding rural area is serviced by several thousand kilometers. The poles and cables are serviced 3 to 4 times a year. The cost of supply to village compared to the rural areas is therefore a factor of the lenght of the network divided by the number of customers. Maths for 9 year I would suggest. This is repeated in every village in Meath and the same formula applies to all services.

I dont have a chip on my shoulder. I am presenting simple plain fact. Those facts do not suit the agenda of people planners/politicians/owners who decided to blight our economy and landscape with an unsustainable settlement pattern.

Why does not suit them, because they realise that they are being subsidised by the rest of society.

Our entire country is subsidised by everyone else. Your roads. Your healthcare your education. Should we start letting single people off paying for other people's kids in schools...


Sit down horse. You'll give yourself a headache

paul71

listermint wrote: »

Our entire country is subsidised by everyone else. Your roads. Your healthcare your education. Should we start letting single people off paying for other people's kids in schools...


Sit down horse. You'll give yourself a headache

Not to the extent that people in towns villages and cities subsidise rural 1 off builds. No thank I won't sit down, I dont have head up my arse and my cornflakes where not pissed in. Personal abuse is simply an admission that people are in denial of very obvious facts.

Spanish Eyes

That house will stay.

Make someone homeless? not a chance. And it will be forgotten soon enough. Amazed that the neighbours are ok with it, but maybe they aren't who knows.

MCC need to grow a pair, and maybe instead of knocking it down, use it for asylum seekers, and let the owners find somewhere else to live.

The audacity of this is just jaw breaking well to me anyway.

Dr Turk Turkelton

paul71 wrote: »

The Village of Sumerhill has 150 to 250 households, the 8km radius around the village probably has in excess of 400 households. The village has it electricity supply serviced by a few dozen kms of cabling. The surrounding rural area is serviced by several thousand kilometers. The poles and cables are serviced 3 to 4 times a year. The cost of supply to village compared to the rural areas is therefore a factor of the lenght of the network divided by the number of customers. Maths for 9 year I would suggest. This is repeated in every village in Meath and the same formula applies to all services.

I dont have a chip on my shoulder. I am presenting simple plain fact. Those facts do not suit the agenda of people planners/politicians/owners who decided to blight our economy and landscape with an unsustainable settlement pattern.

Why does not suit them, because they realise that they are being subsidised by the rest of society.

So what you are saying is that without all these one off houses outside of villages and towns there would be a huge number of Esb workers unemployed?
So to create more jobs we need to build more one off houses. This politics thing seems handy enough.

A VOTE FOR THE DR IS A VOTE FOR JOBS.

Anyone that doesn't vote for me is obviously against jobs.

StackSteevens

paul71 wrote: »

Not to the extent that people in towns villages and cities subsidise rural 1 off builds. No thank I won't sit down, I dont have head up my arse and my cornflakes where not pissed in. Personal abuse is simply an admission that people are in denial of very obvious facts.

Here are some more "obvious facts" for you:

My one off house in the countryside is bordered by dairy farmers on each side. They both need a power supply for their homes, milking machines and refrigeration. The three of us use the same electricity line with me being in the middle of the line, which was there before I arrived. Hence, my one-off actually makes the cost of maintaining that run of power cable less, as it's now being funded by three customers rather than two. And the same economies of scale apply to the community water scheme which I share with my neighbours.

So, by building my one off I've reduced the average cost per house for those utilities.

It's true that there are now three septic tanks instead of two. However that's pretty trivial when one thinks about how much slurry is produced - and spread on the local fields - by the 180 dairy cattle that I live among!

Many one-offs will be in the exact same situation as I am. So your sweeping generalisations don't always apply.

Tiger20

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

So, because we didn't solve a murder, anarchy?

This country was founded by anarchists, people who had an issue with the way the country was being run, and rising against it.While I am not advocating that in this issue, the point I would make is that if laws are to be applied, apply them fairly. There are 2 sides to that coin. The locals only rule has been declared to be illegal, the Irish authorities have known this for the last 7/8 years and done nothing about it. This means that every decision made by the authorities in the last 7 years refusing planning to an applicant on the grounds that the applicant was not local, was, in effect, an illegal decision. The authorities had no grounds to make that decision. I very much doubt they will revisit every decision made retrospectively to amend their error, but I very much hope that an applicant who was refused under those grounds takes a case, as I believe they would have one.However, there has been no issue made about the authorities of this country acting illegally, while there is an issue with citizens breaking the law. Personally, this is something that I have an issue with, as I want to live in a fair society, and the planning laws are just one area where they are not applied fairly. As a nation, we have seen this in other areas, be it the recent penalty points issue, white collar crime, the application of justice. Seeking a fairer society is not anarchy, IMO it is the opposite

Donald Trump

Tiger20 wrote: »

This country was founded by anarchists, people who had an issue with the way the country was being run, and rising against it.While I am not advocating that in this issue, the point I would make is that if laws are to be applied, apply them fairly. There are 2 sides to that coin. The locals only rule has been declared to be illegal, the Irish authorities have known this for the last 7/8 years and done nothing about it. This means that every decision made by the authorities in the last 7 years refusing planning to an applicant on the grounds that the applicant was not local, was, in effect, an illegal decision. The authorities had no grounds to make that decision. I very much doubt they will revisit every decision made retrospectively to amend their error, but I very much hope that an applicant who was refused under those grounds takes a case, as I believe they would have one.However, there has been no issue made about the authorities of this country acting illegally, while there is an issue with citizens breaking the law. Personally, this is something that I have an issue with, as I want to live in a fair society, and the planning laws are just one area where they are not applied fairly. As a nation, we have seen this in other areas, be it the recent penalty points issue, white collar crime, the application of justice. Seeking a fairer society is not anarchy, IMO it is the opposite

You are not refused because you are not a local. You are refused because there is a policy against one-off housing.


The fella who got permission did not get permission because he was a local. He got permission by presenting a case why he needed an exemption.


Not all "locals" can get planning permission. You seem to think there is some rule that you get it if you are a local, else you don't. You are wrong