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
1…2021232526…33

Comments

  • Options
    #662
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,908 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120943193#Comment_120943193

    Absolutely, when they are stupid. I used to own some land that had a SAC designation imposed on it. There was a long driveway to the house that passed through a wood. On a couple of occasions storms felled trees so as to block access to the house. Under the SAC legislation it was illegal for me to touch those trees without first asking permission of National Parks and Wildlife, in writing, accompanied by a written ecological assessment by a recognised ecologist, costing many thousands. So I duly exercised my right of chainsaw and removed the trees that blocked access to my house.

    That same legislation made it illegal for me to harvest firewood from my own wood or to disturb or remove any wood that fell off a tree naturally or to deal with a fallen tree across my driveway. That legislation also made it illegal for me to trim any trees encroaching on the house, due to fire risk, or to even do any gardening.



  • Options
    #663
    Rows Grower
    Registered Users Posts: 7,887 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120943553#Comment_120943553

    There's a big difference between your Mickey Mouse shenanigans and this couple who built a McMansion despite being told it was not allowed.

    I, and I suspect most people would have empathy for your situation.

    "Very soon we are going to Mars. You wouldn't have been going to Mars if my opponent won, that I can tell you. You wouldn't even be thinking about it."

    Donald Trump, March 13th 2018.



  • Options
    #664
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,172 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120943553#Comment_120943553


    i.e "I should be able to buy something on the cheap because it has restrictions, but then I should be able to ignore those restrictions because it suits me personally to. It's just everyone else has to abode by them. I'm special so I don't have to"


    I mean if there is a derelict house up for sale near me and it is cheaper than all the rest because it is listed and comes with loads of restrictions, then because I'm special, I should be able to buy it for cheap, and then ignore those restrictions because they'll make me feel bad



  • Options
    #665
    Rows Grower
    Registered Users Posts: 7,887 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120943645#Comment_120943645

    He didn't say he owned the house in question, he may well have been paying massive rent.

    "Very soon we are going to Mars. You wouldn't have been going to Mars if my opponent won, that I can tell you. You wouldn't even be thinking about it."

    Donald Trump, March 13th 2018.



  • Options
    #666
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,908 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120943645#Comment_120943645

    I owned the property prior to the SAC designation being imposed upon it.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #667
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,172 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120943641#Comment_120943641


    It is also mentioned in the article that the people had a history of buying agricultural land and trying to get permission on it. The article mentions that two of their nieces/nephews were able to get permission on land they bought. So they were doing fairly well out of the planning system to be fair.



  • Options
    #668
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,172 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120943673#Comment_120943673


    Things like SAC designation are never a surprise unless there is something like a surprise archaeological discovery. Wherever you bought, it is unlikely you paid top price for the land. It's unlikely you were planting spuds and intensive veg in it before it was hit with the SAC.

    Any planning or zoning can have the same effect. A farm went up for sale a few years ago in Mulhuddart in Dublin. Made 20k an acre to be fair, but it was literally in spitting distance of massive housing estates and factories. So above average national agricultural value, but a fraction of what it would be worth if not zoned GB


    Edit: Sorry, the asking for that land was 20k. It made 26.5k per acre



  • Options
    #669
    Rows Grower
    Registered Users Posts: 7,887 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120943676#Comment_120943676

    I don't see the point you are trying to make.

    The niece and nephew put in an application with a new entrance road to the site and were granted permission with a significant number of conditions attached.

    Maybe if MR. and Mrs. no one is going to stop us doing what we want had the same attitude as the niece and nephew they wouldn't be in the pickle they are in now. And they are in a big pickle, all of their own making.

    "Very soon we are going to Mars. You wouldn't have been going to Mars if my opponent won, that I can tell you. You wouldn't even be thinking about it."

    Donald Trump, March 13th 2018.



  • Options
    #670
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,559 ✭✭✭dubrov


    I think a bad precedent has already been set on this one. 17 years and counting with no sign of penalty enforcement. At this stage, they've probably built an extension



  • Options
    #671
    micar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,879 ✭✭✭micar


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120942984#Comment_120942984

    No way should they be allowed retention.

    They applied for planning 3 times and all were declined.

    They went ahead and built a house twice the size of that which was previously refused.

    In 2010 high count order to demolish but a stay for 2 years put in place.

    Here we are in 2023.....and nothing done.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #672
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,098 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120943553#Comment_120943553

    So you'd have no problem with Intel buying land beside you and building a new FAB there (without proper planning)?



  • Options
    #673
    Gusser09
    Registered Users Posts: 6,914 ✭✭✭Gusser09


    I have sympathy for the family. It must be causing a lot of stress knowing that you could be out at some stage.

    However they brought it all on themeselves. They didnt just build a 3 bed dormer here. The house is grotesque. Over indulgence at best. They built it without any planning. Im not buying that all of the locals are happy enough with it. Thats not what i have heard.

    I cant see anyway out of it for them now.

    Will the council seek enforcement? Do they want to?

    Amazing this has dragged on like this.

    This is black and white also. They have admitted they were totally in the wrong and the council are within their rights to seek enforcement.



  • Options
    #674
    Novice Self-Build
    Registered Users Posts: 26 ✭Novice Self-Build


    There was no planning permission in Ireland prior to 1964. Our most treasured buildings were built when common sense and community mattered.

    The ruin of Georgian Dublin, the high street and bungalow blitz all happened with council approval.

    A more reasonable response to this issue would be to reduce the house by 50% to 300sqm. It would still penalize them, send a warning message to others and stop wasting tax payers money in court.



  • Options
    #675
    Rows Grower
    Registered Users Posts: 7,887 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120944319#Comment_120944319

    They should have built the McMansion in 1963 so and there would be no issue.

    "Very soon we are going to Mars. You wouldn't have been going to Mars if my opponent won, that I can tell you. You wouldn't even be thinking about it."

    Donald Trump, March 13th 2018.



  • Options
    #676
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,172 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120943711#Comment_120943711


    Well there are multiple points in there

    1) They had experience of the processes and cannot claim ignorance (ignorance is never an excuse anyway). They had already been refused a few times. They can't come out and say "we had no idea and we bought the field and only then learned about planning permission and we we desperate as we had no alternative.

    2) That had already figured out a way to convert agricultural land into more valuable sites when their relations got legitimate permission. So they knew that it could be done legally. (The man apparently works in construction. He might even have gotten some work out of his niece and nephew's house build. Obviously I would never suggest that anyone in this story did anything wrong. As a completely unrelated aside, I do know of some chancer smartarse types near me who got other people to apply for planning permission for them. Some lived in them themselves and some built the houses and sold them. They would have been taking a chance. In most cases it is family members but I also know of one man who got permission and a couple with zero family relationship to him built the house and live there. Don't ask me how they got away with it as it was in the planning conditions that he had to live in it for 7 years before he could sell it!)

    3) Regardless, in converting two sites from agricultural to sites, they would have made a few quid. This would mean they were not paupers stuck for somewhere to live. Further to that point, banks tend not to give loans or mortgages unless all i's are dotted and t's crossed. So the house that they built, they likely built with cash. The relevance of that would be to anyone swallowing their poor mouth woe-is-me story.



  • Options
    #677
    Rows Grower
    Registered Users Posts: 7,887 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120944451#Comment_120944451

    I don't think you quite understand how the planning system works to be honest.

    You don't make money by getting planning permission to build a home. That costs money.

    There is no mystery in turning agricultural land into a site with permission, you employ experts to give you the best advice and proceed from there. You can also buy land "subject to planning" so if you don't get the planning permission you get your money refunded from the seller.

    The 7 year rule is widely known and it is accepted by most solicitors and banks that if the person buying the site with planning permission and building on it has no ties to the area then they will need to live in the house for at least 7 years before deciding to sell it.

    Any solicitor worth his salt will tell a client that it is against EU rules anyway and if there are any issues down the line they will confidently take the matter to a European court and win. The powers that be know this and that is why that particular law is not enforced as in their eyes it would just open the floodgates.

    "Very soon we are going to Mars. You wouldn't have been going to Mars if my opponent won, that I can tell you. You wouldn't even be thinking about it."

    Donald Trump, March 13th 2018.



  • Options
    #678
    Gael23
    Registered Users Posts: 12,091 ✭✭✭✭Gael23


    Its also effectively worthless because it can never be sold



  • Options
    #679
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,172 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120944561#Comment_120944561


    I don't think you quite understand the difference in price between agricultural land and a site to be honest. Do you not realise that if buy a field of say 10 acres at agricultural value, but then get to sell two one-acre sites from it, you will likely get a lot more money from the two sites than you paid for the whole field? You;ll have more than likely at least doubled your money and still have the remaining 8 acres.

    I kinda thought most people would realise that.

    A standalone site in this area will set you back say 200k. Rural cluster ones will set you back about 250k (but those are open to more people to get permission). You'd be looking at well over 300k for one with permission already on it (i.e. so that anyone can build on it. Those would be sites that had derelict houses on them.... one went up for sale a couple of miles from me last year for just under 400k, although the asking dropped by 50k about a month later)

    You can employ all the experts you want if you like. They are largely irrelevant as you get permission or not (in this area at least) based off your personal circumstances/connections which allow you an exception (as long as basics such as entrances and sightlines and percolation tests etc are in order and your overall design doesn't stick out like a sore thumb).

    Where you are might be completely different (I doubt it can be that much different) but the 7 year rule is not for "outside" people - it is put in to try to prevent the practice of people getting permission, and building a house to sell it because they fall into the category of someone who can, even though they don't need it. So either you are not writing what you intended to write, or your understanding is arseways because you appear to think it is for people who have no connection with the area.

    The neighbour that I know who got permission but others built the house - well I don't know how they organised it between themselves They obviously took a large chance that agreements would be kept. I can't tell from your post whether you are trying to contradict that story as if you know the people involved and the situation, or whether you just want to go on about EU rules (which is an argument which appears frequently, but despite all the people confidently proclaiming it, it has never been successfully tested .......... which should kind of give you an idea that it ain't the argument you might think it is)



  • Options
    #680
    GSBellew
    Registered Users Posts: 715 ✭✭✭GSBellew


    Was the initial issue in this case not that the land in question was sterilised after a previous site was granted on the plot?



  • Options
    #681
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,172 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120944692#Comment_120944692


    For that particular location - according to the article - yes.

    The article also says that they had already been refused on two other sites. Family members of theirs subsequently managed to get permission on one of those sites which would show that it was not the site itself which was unsuitable.


    Some reasons for not being granted permission might include that you had already received permission and sold that house, that your "family quota" was already used up (that depends on your local development plan), or that you didn't have a genuine local need to be given the exemption. Those are just general ideas. The article says one was refused as they didn't have sufficient interest in the land



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #682
    Fox Tail
    Registered Users Posts: 261 ✭✭Fox Tail


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120943507#Comment_120943507

    For the period you ignored the law, you were still speeding.

    She still broke the law when she installed the panels.



  • Options
    #683
    Rows Grower
    Registered Users Posts: 7,887 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120944670#Comment_120944670

    Ehhhm, I'm gonna let you waffle away to some other posters now Donald as I don't have the time or the crayons to explain things to you.

    "Very soon we are going to Mars. You wouldn't have been going to Mars if my opponent won, that I can tell you. You wouldn't even be thinking about it."

    Donald Trump, March 13th 2018.



  • Options
    #684
    Gusser09
    Registered Users Posts: 6,914 ✭✭✭Gusser09


    Will they be put out and the house demolished?

    I think they will still be in the house in 2030.



  • Options
    #685
    Fox Tail
    Registered Users Posts: 261 ✭✭Fox Tail


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120944841#Comment_120944841

    All they need to do is appeal. And then appeal again. They will stay in it years.

    Such is our pathetic justice system.

    We must be at the point now where most people question the general enforcement of any law in ireland.

    Mcentee needs to go, sharpish.



  • Options
    #686
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,172 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120944821#Comment_120944821


    Most people don't need crayons to have things explained to them even if it's the way people usually do it for you - but it isn't really normal. Just letting you know.


    At least you learned a bit, even if you did show yourself up to have no idea what you are on about. To recap for you

    1) A site will be worth a lot more than agricultural land

    2) The 7 year rule is not intended only for people who have no ties to an area after they get permission (because they won't get it in the first place)

    Don't mention it



  • Options
    #687
    Rows Grower
    Registered Users Posts: 7,887 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120944850#Comment_120944850

    They've run out of courts to appeal to, this latest appeal in the Independent is a pathetic cry for help from the general public. They've exhausted all their options and would be well advised to find a storage facility where they can keep any fixtures and fittings they want to reuse or sell.

    "Very soon we are going to Mars. You wouldn't have been going to Mars if my opponent won, that I can tell you. You wouldn't even be thinking about it."

    Donald Trump, March 13th 2018.



  • Options
    #688
    Gusser09
    Registered Users Posts: 6,914 ✭✭✭Gusser09


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120945435#Comment_120945435

    Lets see. I cant recall a dwelling like this being knocked before. Dont think it will happen.



  • Options
    #689
    zell12
    Registered Users Posts: 23,841 ✭✭✭✭zell12


    Will tickets be sold to see the demolition?



  • Options
    #690
    Fox Tail
    Registered Users Posts: 261 ✭✭Fox Tail


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120945435#Comment_120945435

    lets see if it actually gets knocked down. I very much doubt it.

    Its like the Greens saying the time is up on reaching our climate targets and there will be huge penalties for society. People just dont believe it.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #691
    muffler
    Registered Users Posts: 45,879 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120944561#Comment_120944561

    You are way off the mark with your interpretation of the "7 year rule" as you call it. People who can demonstrate their ties to a rural area and the need for a house and who successfully obtain planning permission will be required to enter into a legal agreement (Section 47 of planning and development Act) that they reside in the dwelling (for which permission has been granted) for a minimum period of 7 years. It has nothing at all to do with anyone who can't comply with the rural housing policies.



Advertisement