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

Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

Options
12357…32

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Varik wrote: »
    No reason for them to comply.

    They'd be out the cost of demolishing and the cost to rehome themselves.

    No reason to comply with any laws so. It's cheaper to just not bother.


  • Options
    #123
    cameramonkey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,220 ✭✭✭cameramonkey


    Would cost less than 35G to demolish. Strip it of all the wood, metals and slates and get the digger in, would be done in a week.


  • Options
    #124
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,072 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Tiger20 wrote: »
    I was eventually granted planning, on my 3rd attempt. Reasons I was refused were that I wasnt local and wasnt within the A3 zone, (which are subjective), but I knew of other applications where other people were granted planning despite being not locall, and in fact from other countries. I was refused because apparently I didn't have a housing need because Ihad a 2 bedroom house already. This despite the fact that if you are in a2 bed local authority house, you are entitled to a 3 bed if you have 3 kids, so different criteria applied by the same authority in different situations. I was told my proposed dwelling was too large,(220 sq m), despite it being smaller than the 300 sq m house on one side and the 285 sq m house on the other. I have seen people who already have a house granted planning, with them not declaring the fact they have one but questions not being asked by the LA, and others who are genuine and in need being refused. I have seen people who are "connected", either by being GAA heads or business owners, getting planning. One person I know had a large house on 4 acres, granted permission to "downsize" to a 200 sq m house on 2 acres within the original 4, and then repeat the trick 15 years later to an acre site within the 2 acre site. My point is that their is zero consistency within decisions made, and if the authorities want respect, then all laws should be applied equally. Look at people who have shoplifted and get prosecuted, but white collar criminals who do much more damage getting away with it. I feel that this country belongs to every citizen equally, but the laws are not applied that way. So fair ****s to people who challenge the authorities of this country





    They shouldn't granting permission to non-locals.
    It shouldn't have mattered how many times you applied


  • Options
    #125
    um7y1h83ge06nx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭um7y1h83ge06nx


    I'm sure if they let a few "cultured" people at it they would happily take away the copper and lead for free.

    More to demolishing a house than just knocking it, I would imagine there would be a cost to taking the rubble somewhere although you would get some money back from scrap merchants for the metals.


  • Options
    #126
    cameramonkey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,220 ✭✭✭cameramonkey


    I just demolished a smallish house. The amount of rubble is surprising.
    The house gets stripped of all the fittings, wood, slates and anything that needs to be separated, that took a few days. Knocking what was left took about 30 minutes. Then carting everything to the landfill a few days more.
    I think we had about 3 huge skips and about 8 big lorry loads.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Lockheed
    Registered Users Posts: 666 ✭✭✭Lockheed


    McMansion is the only word for the house, glad it was refused permission. As for the bellends who built it anyway, there are no words


  • Options
    #128
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    lawrencesummers wrote: »
    Probably not insured either

    Well no mortgage so thats on them. Its all very foolish on their part. Very foolish and now they are left ****ed but lets be honest, they ****ed themselves

    They built without permission
    They refused the orders
    They fought all the way to the supreme court

    Why shouldnt they foot the bill for a case they lost?


  • Options
    #129
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    StackSteevens wrote: »
    Did you happen to spot the question marks that I inserted at the end of the relevant sentences in my post that you quoted?

    In a nutshell, I want the Supreme Court's verdict to be enforced and I don't really care whether this is done by the guilty party or by the ratepayer and taxpayer-funded Body that won the case in the Supreme Court but doesn't appear to want to see the judgement enforced.

    The law-abiding ratepayers of Meath deserve more from their paid Council employees.

    I did and it changes nothing, you want action taken. Against anyone. Its for the house builder to comply with the order. Its for the courts to find him in default and contempt. The order doesnt grant anyone else authority to go onto private lands and start smashing.

    The council will argue but at the moment they are out a couple of hundred grand over this and as you can see, it has taken over a decade to date.


  • Options
    #130
    CrankyHaus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭CrankyHaus


    Lockheed wrote: »
    McMansion is the only word for the house, glad it was refused permission. As for the bellends who built it anyway, there are no words

    What about their mates creating accounts to come on here and make spurious arguments for why the law should not apply to them?


  • Options
    #131
    Darc19
    Registered Users Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭Darc19


    For anyone supporting this, the land was sterilized from development before they bought it.

    It is extremely rare for a council to vary such sterilisation even for a family member of the land owner. Rarer still to do it for an unconnected person.

    They knew this before they bought it.

    They then commenced building immediately after planning was refused.


    Council should have been quicker and obtained a court order to prevent it being built.



    Similar story in the uk - eventually took contempt of court action and 3 months prison sentence to get it demolished https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeycrock_Farm


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Varik
    Registered Users Posts: 12,486 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    No reason to comply with any laws so. It's cheaper to just not bother.

    There tends to be actual consequences for most laws.

    When it's easier/cheaper to just ignore it then it's a pretty pointless law.


  • Options
    #133
    StackSteevens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭StackSteevens


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »

    I did and it changes nothing, you want action taken. Against anyone. Its for the house builder to comply with the order. Its for the courts to find him in default and contempt. The order doesnt grant anyone else authority to go onto private lands and start smashing.

    The council will argue but at the moment they are out a couple of hundred grand over this and as you can see, it has taken over a decade to date.

    Please try not to be so stupid - I want action taken against the individual who broke the law, not "against anyone" as you suggest.

    And I want the State Body that took and won the Supreme Court case to get the lead out of its corporate arse and to take whatever steps are necessary for the Supreme Court's verdict to be implemented. I assume that this might require the Council taking an action against Murray for contempt of court.


  • Options
    #134
    El Tarangu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭El Tarangu


    bladespin wrote: »
    Agree but there lies the problem I think, Meath is one of the most difficult places to get planning afik they really seem to go out of their way to deny rather than engage, very discouraging, leading to the ‘feck them’ attitude.

    Presumably this is at the behest of Meath CoCo and as such represents the will the people. Perhaps it's universal, but it seems a particularly Irish thing, this notion of: "building a house in the middle of this field (and then having all of the nice services connected up to it regardless of where it is) is my inalienable birthright".

    With all the money they spent building that monstrosity, they could have just bought a nice house.


  • Options
    #135
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Speaking of services. Is there no restrictions on getting connected? I assume they are on a septic tank for sewage, but is there no planning involved in getting power to them? How did no issue arise at that stage?


  • Options
    #136
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    StackSteevens wrote: »
    Please try not to be so stupid - I want action taken against the individual who broke the law, not "against anyone" as you suggest.

    And I want the State Body that took and won the Supreme Court case to get the lead out of its corporate arse and to take whatever steps are necessary for the Supreme Court's verdict to be implemented. I assume that this might require the Council taking an action against Murray for contempt of court.

    You are the one that was being stupid. You made the comment and it was exactly that, stupid.

    I see above you have clarified the point you were making into a sensible one.


  • Options
    #137
    ronivek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,916 ✭✭✭ronivek


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Speaking of services. Is there no restrictions on getting connected? I assume they are on a septic tank for sewage, but is there no planning involved in getting power to them? How did no issue arise at that stage?

    The ESB have legal powers to run cabling and don’t require planning permission. Aside from that the owners are in construction so presumably could arrange whatever kind of work they needed without many questions being asked.


  • Options
    #138
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users Posts: 8,179 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    Could their power be cut off, legally?


  • Options
    #139
    CrankyHaus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭CrankyHaus


    El Tarangu wrote: »
    it seems a particularly Irish thing, this notion of: "building a house in the middle of this field (and then having all of the nice services connected up to it regardless of where it is) is my inalienable birthright".

    Shure they only want to live with some space and peace and quiet....

    And a post office a short drive away...
    And a fully manned Garda Station...
    And high speed broadband....
    And a full service hospital....
    And a motorway to Dublin...
    And a train line....
    And an internationally ranked University, none of this IT nonsense...
    And an international airport.

    Shure up in Dublin they have a Luas and all, it's a disgrace how Rural Ireland gets nothing from the state.


  • Options
    #140
    Tiger20
    Registered Users Posts: 87 ✭✭Tiger20


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    They shouldn't granting permission to non-locals.
    It shouldn't have mattered how many times you applied[/quote

    If you knew anything, you would know that the locals only rule has been found to be illegal and discriminatory by the EU, (Flemish rule)but so far the Irish authorities have not responded to amend this, but of course that's okay as they can break the laws but no one else can. If the authorities are so keen to be lawful, and for its citizens to be lawful, then apply the law. In my particular case, I was successful eventually because I persevered through many stressful years and after loads of research, and was able to demonstrate that the granting of planning was consistent with other decisions made. Through my research I found many examples of applications granted while others refused. I have seen sites refused numerous times for different applicants, and the someone else is successful where others were told no dwelling would be allowed there. IMO, there is total inconsistency in the way the system is administered, which leads to total frustration.


  • Options
    #141
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    CrankyHaus wrote: »
    Shure they only want to live with some space and peace and quiet....

    And a post office a short drive away...
    And a fully manned Garda Station...
    And high speed broadband....
    And a full service hospital....
    And a motorway to Dublin...
    And a train line....
    And an internationally ranked University, none of this IT nonsense...
    And an international airport.

    Shure up in Dublin they have a Luas and all, it's a disgrace how Rural Ireland gets nothing from the state.


    Not sure I understand the point you're making? I'm completely against the house mentioned in this thread, but in general, I admire and envy people that managed to get their houses out of the urban areas that are generally a misery to live in.


    I'd much rather live in a house in a field in <any location> than live in Dublin, Drogheda, Navan, etc.

    If those people are fortunate enough to have all the amenities mentioned above, on their doorstep, then more power to them. They're making a mockery of us 'urban dwellers', but they did the right thing staying away from, or getting out of, urban living, in my opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,914 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Not sure I understand the point you're making? I'm completely against the house mentioned in this thread, but in general, I admire and envy people that managed to get their houses out of the urban areas that are generally a misery to live in.


    I'd much rather live in a house in a field in <any location> than live in Dublin, Drogheda, Navan, etc.

    If those people are fortunate enough to have all the amenities mentioned above, on their doorstep, then more power to them. They're making a mockery of us 'urban dwellers', but they did the right thing staying away from, or getting out of, urban living, in my opinion.
    It costs the taxpayer a lot more to provide services for one-off housing.


  • Options
    #143
    StackSteevens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭StackSteevens


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    You are the one that was being stupid. You made the comment and it was exactly that, stupid.

    I see above you have clarified the point you were making into a sensible one.

    Your comprehension difficulties aren't really my concern. If you struggled to understand what I wrote earlier, then why not find a night class that could help you to bush up on your reading and comprehension skills?

    Now, as it's now abundantly clear that you've absolutely nothing informative, intelligent, helpful or pertinent to contribute to this thread I'm adding you to my ignore list.


  • Options
    #144
    2018na
    Registered Users Posts: 215 ✭✭2018na


    Just to say I am familiar with the house and would know one of the Murrays but not the chap who built this house. My own view is they have made a monumental error of judgment with out question. But since then they have been through hell and back financially emotionally and I would imagine if they could turn the clock back then they never would dream of proceeding as they did with the build. In a lot of ways I feel they have served there sentence now and have been made an example of. It would be a shocking waste to demolish that building and would benefit no one. They are facing ginormous costs way above the value of the place anyway. It has set a precedent already imo no one in Ireland will attempt this again


  • Options
    #145
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    StackSteevens wrote: »
    Your comprehension difficulties aren't really my concern. If you struggled to understand what I wrote earlier, then why not find a night class that could help you to bush up on your reading and comprehension skills?

    Now, as it's now abundantly clear that you've absolutely nothing informative, intelligent, helpful or pertinent to contribute to this thread I'm adding you to my ignore list.
    StackSteevens wrote: »
    I would imagine that The Minister has the authorisation to instruct a public servant to uphold the law of the land. If the public servant subsequently disobeys the Minister then that would be grounds for a disciplinary process which could end up with his or her dismissal.
    "StackSteevens wrote:
    Does this not mean that someone - either Meath County Council which took the original case or the lawbreakers (or both) - is/are in contempt of court?

    How can a concerned citizen take steps to inform the Court that a State Agency is treating its directive with complete contempt?

    Can the CEO of Meath County Council be prosecuted for failing to carry out a Supreme Court directive?

    Your words. It's very clear.


  • Options
    #146
    El Tarangu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭El Tarangu


    2018na wrote: »
    In a lot of ways I feel they have served there sentence now and have been made an example of. It would be a shocking waste to demolish that building and would benefit no one. They are facing ginormous costs way above the value of the place anyway. It has set a precedent already imo no one in Ireland will attempt this again

    If the house doesn't get knocked and they are allowed to continue living there, that would certainly set a precedent; everyone will build what they like, safe in the knowledge that, whatever else happens, they will get to continue living in their illegally-constructed house.


  • Options
    #147
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    2018na wrote: »
    My own view is they have made a monumental error of judgment with out question.

    Its way beyond that. It was a very conscious **** you to the authorities. Building a house twice the size after permission was denied was nothing like an "error of judgement"
    2018na wrote: »
    . In a lot of ways I feel they have served there sentence now and have been made an example of.

    In what way? Theres been no consequences beyond having to go to court because of their own decisions.


  • Options
    #148
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,914 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    2018na wrote: »
    But since then they have been through hell and back financially emotionally and I would imagine if they could turn the clock back then they never would dream of proceeding as they did with the build. In a lot of ways I feel they have served there sentence now and have been made an example of.
    It's all their own doing and whilst they've opposed the legal outcomes all the way, they made the decision to continue on that path.
    I've no sympathy for them at all. They gave two fingers to the planning acts and to the legal system because it didn't suit them.
    2018na wrote: »
    It would be a shocking waste to demolish that building and would benefit no one.
    It's a vulgar eyesore. Sh1te like that should never be allowed.
    2018na wrote: »
    They are facing ginormous costs way above the value of the place anyway. It has set a precedent already imo no one in Ireland will attempt this again
    Are you for real?
    The costs are of their own making. As for precedent, we need to define breaches of the acts with harsh punishments including razing developments and site restoration.


  • Options
    #149
    Treppen
    Registered Users Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭Treppen


    StackSteevens wrote: »
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/council-takes-legal-advice-as-deadline-to-demolish-co-meath-house-passes-1.3532240

    So then:

    June 2006 - Meath County Council refused planning permission.

    March 2007 Meath County Council informed that a large house had been built on the lands.

    May 2007 - Retention permission refused on the five-bedroomed property.

    Nov 2008 - Compromise offer by the Murrays to demolish part of the 588 sq m home is rejected by planners.

    July 2010 - High Court orders the house be demolished and given two years to comply. The case is appealed to the Supreme Court

    May 2017 - The Supreme Court upholds the original High Court decision and orders the Murrays to demolish their home within 12 months.

    June 2018 - having completely ignored the Supreme Court order, the Murrays issue a plea to Meath County Councillors to be allowed to continue waving their two fingers at Ireland's Planning Laws and the Supreme Court.

    Since then, there has been silence.

    Does anyone know what the latest is, please?

    Because, if they are still getting away with this, then the Irish Supreme Court must be regarded as an international laughing stock.

    Were you the informer in 2007…?


  • Options
    #150
    batman75
    Registered Users Posts: 560 ✭✭✭batman75


    Ultimately the house needs to be flattened . There are planning laws and to flout them cannot be tolerated. To not demolish the house is to open a national can of worms.

    What I will say though is that those that work in planning offices across the country wield power. Power corrupts plus the possibility of personal vendettas can’t be ruled out. Plus power can go to people’s heads. I’m not sure if their is enough checks and balances to offset the problems that those who wield power can present.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,914 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    batman75 wrote: »
    What I will say though is that those that work in planning offices across the country wield power. Power corrupts plus the possibility of personal vendettas can’t be ruled out. Plus power can go to people’s heads. I’m not sure if their is enough checks and balances to offset the problems that those who wield power can present.
    I'm taking it for granted that you don't know any of these people and your opinion is based on a wild imagination


Advertisement