Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

Donald Trump

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

What a load of ****e.

You want to apply locals only? Fine. No jobs and no college places for non dubs.

Silly isn't it?

You can do that if you want. The universities would be fairly empty though........

cnocbui

Is there a way to get a measure of how much decision making influence a property 'owner' has over what they can do with their property vs the decision making power of the state via planning laws, An Board Nyet and the unelected and answering to no one, An Taisce?

Whats the split; 30/70. 50/50, 80/20?

Donald Trump

El Tarangu wrote: »

Either an area is suitable for planning and should be zoned and available to build by anyone with the money to buy it, or it isn't suitable and shouldn't be built upon by anyone. If you live in a city, you are competing with people from France and Latvia and everywhere else if you are looking to buy a house in your own area; the idea that certain people should have a preference when being granted planning in certain areas conferred upon them by virtue of their birth is anathema in a republic.

No it's not. Some places can only support a limited amount of development. Therefore access to that needs to be prioritized. Local needs first. Simple as that.

gifted

This house won't be knocked......no doubt there's some regulation buried in the planning laws that says that after a period of time then planning may be automtically granted and I reckon the Murrays know this. This is Ireland folks.

StackSteevens

tayto lover wrote: »

Have just read part of this thread.
The Murrays previously bought 2 other sites and were refused planning permission. They said in their letter to the Meath Chronicle that other people were later given permission to build on these sites. How did that happen?

That doesn't really matter.

What matters is that they built a massive, tasteless, vulgar, gin palace on a site after being refused planning permission. And that they are continuing to disobey a Supreme Court instruction to pull it down within 12 months, with impunity.

All the rest of the whataboutery and miscellaneous bum fluff is completely irrelevant.

El Tarangu

Donald Trump wrote: »

No it's not. Some places can only support a limited amount of development. Therefore access to that needs to be prioritized. Local needs first. Simple as that.

You haven't adequately explained why this is the case.

Donald Trump

El Tarangu wrote: »

You haven't adequately explained why this is the case.

History. Workplace. Familial and community connections. It is surprising that you would need this to be explained to you.

El Tarangu

Donald Trump wrote: »

History. Workplace. Familial and community connections. It is surprising that you would need this to be explained to you.

Why don't they buy an existing house? If none available in their town, buy in the next town?

I couldn't afford to buy in the part of Dublin where I grew up; there was no special planning exemption granted for me, I just had to buy somewhere else.

Tiger20

Donald Trump wrote: »

No it's not. Some places can only support a limited amount of development. Therefore access to that needs to be prioritized. Local needs first. Simple as that.

You seem to miss the point being made. The poster said either an area is suitable for development or its mot, he never said how much development should be allowed. If it is suitable, then in a republic, to differentiate between WHO can develop it is illegal and against the spirit of equal citizenship of said republic, as all citizens are equal(supposedly). As you can only build something on land that you own, it would be impossible for a "non local" outsider to build something unless they purchased said land, in which case it would be the local owner selling it. Ownership confers control. On a wider point, if you were to take your argument to its logical conclusion, then nobody could venture from the area in which they are from, and no one should live anywhere else other than their original local area.

Donald Trump

El Tarangu wrote: »

Why don't they buy an existing house? If none available in their town, buy in the next town?

I couldn't afford to buy in the part of Dublin where I grew up; there was no special planning exemption granted for me, I just had to buy somewhere else.

You can buy a house in the countryside if you want to too. For you, your criteria might be that it needs to be within 30 miles of where you work in Dublin. So you'll find a house to fit that criteria.



Whereas for the local person who wants to live close by so that they can help their parents on their farm, or else keep an eye on their elderly relatives, well there might not be a house coming onto the market in the area within the next 10 years.


If you were brought up in D4, well there will be loads of houses in that area for sale in the next year. That you can't buy one is a product of your earning capacity relative to your peers in D4 - not to the availability of houses there.

L1011

gifted wrote: »

This house won't be knocked......no doubt there's some regulation buried in the planning laws that says that after a period of time then planning may be automtically granted and I reckon the Murrays know this. This is Ireland folks.

There isn't. Enforcement can't start if something is there for 7 years but in this case enforcement has reached the final appeal and nothing will ever regularise it

Donald Trump

Tiger20 wrote: »

You seem to miss the point being made. The poster said either an area is suitable for development or its mot, he never said how much development should be allowed. If it is suitable, then in a republic, to differentiate between WHO can develop it is illegal and against the spirit of equal citizenship of said republic, as all citizens are equal(supposedly). As you can only build something on land that you own, it would be impossible for a "non local" outsider to build something unless they purchased said land, in which case it would be the local owner selling it. Ownership confers control. On a wider point, if you were to take your argument to its logical conclusion, then nobody could venture from the area in which they are from, and no one should live anywhere else other than their original local area.

Ah sure look it. We should take all the remaining sites left in Gaeltacht areas and auction them off. The locals who have lived and worked there all their lives in the local shops and businesses can compete against the 20-somethings earning 150k a year working up in Google in Dublin who want to build their own holiday cottage.

cnocbui

Donald Trump wrote: »

I am well aware of arseholes taking cases to the EU.

My point still holds. They shouldn't be granting permission to non-locals. Simple as that.

If I were to become afflicted with some bout of sudden retardation which made me want to go and live in inner city Dublin, the chances of me getting a free house of the council would be very small.......yet if I had lived there my whole life, you can be fairly sure I'd get a nice central location close to both "me ma's" and the dole office.

Local rules are fine when it suits ya and not when it doesn't. That's about the size of it!

Let's see how you'll feel in maybe 20 years when the Council decide that there can only be one more house in the area and one of your kids wants to build to live beside you and where they grew up and went to school and play and coach in the local GAA club, only for you to be told that that one available slot is going up for raffle in an EU-wide tender and that your kid can just enter it along with a few thousand applicants from builders and speculators spread from France to Latvia. I'd say you'd change your tune fairly lively then :pac:

You are basically saying it's OK for the government to treat people differently on the basis of cultural traits, so it would be appropriate for the government to designate specific areas of Dublin where Jews had to live, another for Muslims, another for non-Irish born people, etc, etc?

I'm an Australian living in Ireland. I find your mindset and that of a lot of Irish people, totally bizarre. 'No Irish, no Blacks, no Dogs' as a legally enforceable concept you are happy with.

I am just hoping some wealthy German denied planning permission in some rural area, takes this country to the European Court of justice or Human Rights.

An Irish person moving to Australia is not going to be denied planning permission to build a house somewhere on the basis of them not being local.

Medieval thinking is alive and well in this country.

Vestiapx

Donald Trump wrote: »

Point is that if it is "ok" to have a preference for "locals" in relation to city or town housing in order to "preserve communities", why is it suddenly wrong to have it in relation to rural property?


If I want to live in Dublin city centre, well maybe I walk around and see all the fine locations which are "underused" (from an economic standpoint) where the city council have blocks of flats with people who, without wanting to cause offence, lets just say aren't exactly driving the economy of the country.

It's not ok, people needing housing are a totally separate issue and I agree they should take what's suitable and offered but it's separate to the fact that local only planning is a terrible idea.

Donald Trump

cnocbui wrote: »

You are basically saying it's OK for the government to treat people differently on the basis of cultural traits, so it would be appropriate for the government to designate specific areas of Dublin where Jews had to live, another for Muslims, another for non-Irish born people, etc, etc?

I'm an Australian living in Ireland. I find your mindset and that of a lot of Irish people, totally bizarre. 'No Irish, no Blacks, no Dogs' as a legally enforceable concept you are happy with.

I am just hoping some wealthy German denied planning permission in some rural area, takes this country to the European Court of justice or Human Rights.

An Irish person moving to Australia is not going to be denied planning permission to build a house somewhere on the basis of them not being local.

Medieval thinking is alive and well in this country.

Look it's fine. You don't understand and probably never will. That's as far as we can go in terms of a "debate".

I don't know where you are going with this whataboutery for ghettoising Jews and Muslims. That's your own idea. I know that the Aussies do have concentration camps for the immigrants but we don't do that here.

Vestiapx

cnocbui wrote: »

You are basically saying it's OK for the government to treat people differently on the basis of cultural traits, so it would be appropriate for the government to designate specific areas of Dublin where Jews had to live, another for Muslims, another for non-Irish born people, etc, etc?

I'm an Australian living in Ireland. I find your mindset and that of a lot of Irish people, totally bizarre. 'No Irish, no Blacks, no Dogs' as a legally enforceable concept you are happy with.

I am just hoping some wealthy German denied planning permission in some rural area, takes this country to the European Court of justice or Human Rights.

An Irish person moving to Australia is not going to be denied planning permission to build a house somewhere on the basis of them not being local.

Medieval thinking is alive and well in this country.

Australia has its fair share of xenophobes as well to be fair.

cnocbui

Donald Trump wrote: »

Ah sure look it. We should take all the remaining sites left in Gaeltacht areas and auction them off. The locals who have lived and worked there all their lives in the local shops and businesses can compete against the 20-somethings earning 150k a year working up in Google in Dublin who want to build their own holiday cottage.

Yes.

Seth Brundle

tayto lover wrote: »

Have just read part of this thread.
The Murrays previously bought 2 other sites and were refused planning permission. They said in their letter to the Meath Chronicle that other people were later given permission to build on these sites. How did that happen?

There could be loads of reasons but given what we know about the Murray's tastes, maybe it was simply too big for the site and the newer proposals were more appropriate.
It's irrelevant to the thread either way.

tayto lover wrote: »

Or maybe a few quid to the right councillors. RTÉ should investigate again.

Aah would people stop with the paranoid nonsense.

cnocbui

Vestiapx wrote: »

Australia has its fair share of xenophobes as well to be fair.

Yes it does, but show me where their views are reflected in and enforced by the law.

Donald Trump

Vestiapx wrote: »

It's not ok, people needing housing are a totally separate issue and I agree they should take what's suitable and offered but it's separate to the fact that local only planning is a terrible idea.

So what about when Dublin City Council decides to develop, or redevelop an area for locals. Is that ok with you?


If DCC build a social housing complex out the back of the IFSC, you can bet your bollix that it is being built for, and will be populated by, people and families from that area of the north inner city. Why is that ok, whereas it's not ok for people who live in a rural area to have first preference to stay there?


The ones in the north inner city are surrounded by high paying employers. The rural ones are not.

Tiger20

Darc19 wrote: »

Every document relating to every planning application is online for everyone to read.

Decisions are described in detail both those refused and those granted.

But some people just hate that their preconceived notions are blown out by facts.

While it is true that planning applications are public documents available to view, it does not reflect the fair application of the system. I viewed a lot of applications in my area, and in some other local authorities to compare. What I found is that some applications had a report done by the local planner, (which is not supposed to be available until after a decision is made), only to receive unsolicited further information addressing an issue. How the applicant was aware of this report and the issue involved, I don't know. I have seen reports done by the local planners, recommending refusal, then for some reason, a second report done by an executive planner, either concerning or disagreeing with the original assessment, and if disagreeing third report by a senior executive planner simply adding an addendum saying pin this case an exception can be made. I have seen cases where all three reports recommend refusal, only for the authorities to decide to grant. I have seen people with very genuine needs, sometimes for a child with special needs, being refused, and another person nearby with no apparent need getting planning. And while your point about all documents being available to view, sometimes a request to provide documents by the applicant has not been made, and a decision is granted, while others are nearly asked what they had for breakfast and to provide documentary evidence. So while the system is not perfect, no system ever is, but the application of the system is very very arbitrary

cnocbui

Donald Trump wrote: »

Look it's fine. You don't understand and probably never will. That's as far as we can go in terms of a "debate".

I don't know where you are going with this whataboutery for ghettoising Jews and Muslims. That's your own idea. I know that the Aussies do have concentration camps for the immigrants but we don't do that here.

I'm not surprised you don't get it. There is usually an idea that people should normally be treated equally before the law. What you advocate is the opposite of that.

Do you get the idea that a coin normally has two sides; that there is a flip side to a coin? The flip side of your argument that it's OK for the law/state to tell certain people where they can't live, on the basis of cultural traits, is that it's therefore OK for them to dictate to people, on the basis of cultural traits, where they can live.

Donald Trump

cnocbui wrote: »

I'm not surprised you don't get it. There is usually an idea that people should normally be treated equally before the law. What you advocate is the opposite of that.

Do you get the idea that a coin normally has two sides; that there is a flip side to a coin? The flip side of your argument that it's OK for the law/state to tell certain people where they can't live, on the basis of cultural traits, is that it's therefore OK for them to dictate to people, on the basis of cultural traits, where they can live.

If you can't understand that there is a difference between not allowing an individual to get planning permission for a house and ghettoising them based on their religion, then I'm not sure that I can help you.


Your argument probably makes sense to you in your own head. That's fair enough. I can't really help you with that. I'm just happy that you don't get to make the rules.


That house should be bulldozed on those people. End of story.


You could propose the state buying it off them at agricultural value for the land plus a nominal price for the building and using it to house older people or something like that. But that could starts to get messy and opens up other complications.

Tiger20

Donald Trump wrote: »

Ah sure look it. We should take all the remaining sites left in Gaeltacht areas and auction them off. The locals who have lived and worked there all their lives in the local shops and businesses can compete against the 20-somethings earning 150k a year working up in Google in Dublin who want to build their own holiday cottage.

You cant take a site from someone who owns it, that argument has not being made.

Donald Trump

Tiger20 wrote: »

You cant take a site from someone who owns it, that argument has not being made.

Why would you need to take anything from anyone?


Give unconditional transferable planning permission (in the sense that no local needs apply etc.) to every possible future site in a Gaeltacht area and let the owners sell them off whenever they want to.

Kaybaykwah

Tiger20 wrote: »

While it is true that planning applications are public documents available to view, it does not reflect the fair application of the system. I viewed a lot of applications in my area, and in some other local authorities to compare. What I found is that some applications had a report done by the local planner, (which is not supposed to be available until after a decision is made), only to receive unsolicited further information addressing an issue. How the applicant was aware of this report and the issue involved, I don't know. I have seen reports done by the local planners, recommending refusal, then for some reason, a second report done by an executive planner, either concerning or disagreeing with the original assessment, and if disagreeing third report by a senior executive planner simply adding an addendum saying pin this case an exception can be made. I have seen cases where all three reports recommend refusal, only for the authorities to decide to grant. I have seen people with very genuine needs, sometimes for a child with special needs, being refused, and another person nearby with no apparent need getting planning. And while your point about all documents being available to view, sometimes a request to provide documents by the applicant has not been made, and a decision is granted, while others are nearly asked what they had for breakfast and to provide documentary evidence. So while the system is not perfect, no system ever is, but the application of the system is very very arbitrary

The "nearly asked what they had for breakfast" part is interesting. Is that near conjecture on your part or actually made up? Either way, your report of the application publications is not fine grained enough to determine what points are lacking in the applicants' submissions.

I think that anyone wanting to build on a piece of.land should get the proper authorization and stick to it. I have a hard time with people who willingly throw a wrench into a very straightforward process, and actually abuse it by a country mile, and then complain of unfair treatment. Come on.

A house is too valuable a family asset to have to forfeit down the road.

Donald Trump

There are planning laws and rules. Certain areas are designated as residential and certain areas are designated as commercial and some are designated for industry and some as rural.

They don't want one-off housing in rural areas. That is a valid viewpoint and then that is the standard. To deviate away from that necessitates an exception - for which you must demonstrate why you need that exception. If you can't demonstrate that, then tough shit.

It's a fairly simple concept.


For example, everybody would agree that a good rule would be that a person cannot get multiple permissions for one-off houses. Why would you have a need for multiple houses? But there are exceptions. I know of a fella who had a house and then later on had a kid who was confined to a wheelchair and so they got permission to build a new house which was suitable for wheelchair. That's completely fair and justified. But there is probably still some wanker out there who would take a case to the EU Supreme Court that their human rights were infringed because Jimmy got to build two houses and they only got to build one.

cnocbui

Widdensushi wrote: »

Rubbish, we need rules or everyone can build what they want, I am not necessarily against that but if you have rules then the people who ignore them have to take down their properties or there will be a free for all. It's an injustice to everyone who applies for planning permission that this property is still standing.

Yes, much better we enshrine in the constitution a right to own property and make sure we then have laws to effectively rescind those same rights.

Want nice large areas of glass window? No, you should have small glass windows with glazing bars to spoil the view even further, because that makes your house - sorry, our house - look more like a f'ing cottage in 2020, sorry, 1720. Oh, and make sure a third of the front of the house you are building for us is of natural stone, and it had better be a stone I, your Oberleutnant of planning approve of. (pssst! me uncle has a local quarry - nod, nod; wink, wink)

The system is so utterly sh1t the government has had to step in especially to allow solar panels to stop the planning departments preventing them.

Of course the goverrnment should have stopped pretending there isn't a problem and should have reformed the planning laws that allow the planners that much power, but oh no, this is Ireland, just slap a plaster on it.

El Tarangu

Donald Trump wrote: »

Whereas for the local person who wants to live close by so that they can help their parents on their farm, or else keep an eye on their elderly relatives, well there might not be a house coming onto the market in the area within the next 10 years.

This sounds like they need to zone more land for residential in the nearest town or village, available for everyone to buy, and not build a load of one-off houses resulting in a patchwork development that urban dwellers will be subsidising until the end of time.

Donald Trump wrote: »

So what about when Dublin City Council decides to develop, or redevelop an area for locals. Is that ok with you?

No.

Donald Trump

El Tarangu wrote: »

No.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that. If someone's roots are deeply embedded in a particular location then my opinion is that if that is something of value to them, then it adds more to society as a whole to allow them to keep that as compared to giving it to a randomer who can't have the same appreciation of or connection to that history. That's the same whether it is Cabra or Sherrif St. or Leitrim.