nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Court orders demolition of family home.

Run_to_da_hills

"The High Court has ordered the demolition within two years of the two-storey home of a couple and their three children in Co Meath built by them after Meath County Council refused planning permission for a house half its size.

Michael and Rose Murray, who have lived in the house at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, near Navan, since December 2006, had pleaded against the demolition order".

If I were him I would walk away from it and let the travellers move in, he was refused planning before on the same site for a house half that size. land without planning permission wouldn't be worth a fcuk and would cost heaps to knock it and clear the rubble.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0629/breaking42.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

mariaf24

How about County council offices :pac:

iora_rua

I really did feel sorry for the family when I first heard the story, especially as there were children involved. However, I just couldn't believe that someone would so totally disregard planning laws - which are there for good reason, having seen the oversized, tasteless combination of styles in this instance. When will we ever learn in Ireland that 'less is more' especially when it comes to house design!

Ideally, it should be purchased under compulsory order and put to some other use, rather than destroying it, then the family would have some recompense. With a few changes to the exterior it might be less of an eyesore ... but on second thoughts, that could cost even more.

starbelgrade

iora_rua wrote: »

Ideally, it should be purchased under compulsory order and put to some other use, rather than destroying it,

It'd make a good sized brothel. Plenty of bedrooms & showering facilities, with a double garage for discreet parking and a nice balcony at the front for keeping an eye out for the Gardai.

Or just rent it out to the Chinese so they can grow weed in it.

Mike 1972

iora_rua wrote: »

it should be purchased under compulsory order and put to some other use, rather than destroying it, then the family would have some recompense.

So *people who flagrantly break the law and come a cropper are now entitled to some recompense from the taxpayer

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter

Edit: * (Besides bankers obviously)

ejmaztec

Mike 1972 wrote: »

So people who flagrantly break the law and come a cropper are now entitled to some recompense from the taxpayer

I find your ideas intriguing and would like to know how I can subscribe to your newsletter ?

50% Idiot Tax will be introduced in the next budget.

ricman

IT would be nice if the judge would say knock down 3/4 of the house, leave a house 3bed 900sq ft. OR give him the option to give the whole house to a charity and recieve 100k tax credit for the next 5 years ,ie 20k credit per year.OF course tax credits are only of use if you are earning a good wage.
WE cannot have people building after planning permission is denied,thats either arrogance or stupidity.
Theres lots of old houses you could buy in meath ,refurbish and modernise .IT must have cost at least 300k to build.
A charity could make good use of that house .

danbohan

starbelgrade wrote: »

I don't think it should be demolished. Instead, there should be explosives put under it & webcams all around it. When enough people click on the "explode" button, say 150,000, it should be blown to high heavens.

The website could be called www.FarewellToTheCelticTigerHouse.com

great idea, and if that works can we do it on a massive scale and do all of Dublin ?

hick

with ref to the earlier post sayin he had found it difficult to find work over the past 2 years, well if he hadn't built a 6,500 sqft house costing even at best €100 a sqft he might have a few bob to get through the rainy day(s). I've had the possibility of planning turned down on 3 occasions on two different properties. It does, quite rightly, give me the right to bitch and moan about planning in Ireland, it doesn't give me any recourse on flouting the law. This guy knew what he was doing from day one and every other one since, it said he was a plumber I believe, for once I'd say he's actually got a reason to wince and suck air through his teeth when someone asks how much this is going to cost.

Run_to_da_hills

ricman wrote: »

IT would be nice if the judge would say knock down 3/4 of the house, leave a house 3bed 900sq ft. OR give him the option to give the whole house to a charity and recieve 100k tax credit for the next 5 years ,ie 20k credit per year.OF course tax credits are only of use if you are earning a good wage.
WE cannot have people building after planning permission is denied,thats either arrogance or stupidity.
Theres lots of old houses you could buy in meath ,refurbish and modernise .IT must have cost at least 300k to build.
A charity could make good use of that house .

If this guy had disregard for planning how do we know that the house was structurally sound or built to current standards?

Did he work through an architects plans using skilled tradesmen or did he just lump it together through cheap direct labour?.

mickdw

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Thats right. Just let people build anywhere. See how well that works out

It is interesting to note that every building that we are now trying to protect & most buildings that are generally regarded as examples of fine design & architecture were constructed prior to the 1963 when the planning system came into being. Things might not work out as bad as one would think. You would have no forced increases in land value due to zonong etc, no requirement for people to squash into housing estates. no banking collapse as an over heated housing market wouldnt happen.

collegegal

it should be purchased under compulsory order and put to some other use, rather than destroying it

how could it possible be bought under a compulsory order, when the house in question was built essentially illegal. They are simply making an example of this case so that other people don't simply disregard planning laws. Rules are there to be followed (yes bent a little where possible) but not completely disregarded. If so where would it stop?? Plus, by the looks of the house and the fact that tonight's news reported, the guy had now reduced hours in work, I'd say he would be struggling to pay the mortgage. It's just another case in this country of trying to keep up with the Jones's and going to any lengths to do so. A mentality that has to stop for our sanity and the sake of our economic recovery. Demolish the house!

Mike 1972

mickdw wrote: »

It is interesting to note that every building that we are now trying to protect & most buildings that are generally regarded as examples of fine design & architecture were constructed prior to the 1963 when the planning system came into being. Things might not work out as bad as one would think. You would have no forced increases in land value due to zonong etc, no requirement for people to squash into housing estates. no banking collapse as an over heated housing market wouldnt happen.

Prior to 1963 population density in most parts of Ireland was far lower than today and population distribution was far more even with household sizes considerably larger so the consequences of unregulated development were not as acute as they would be now.

Im not dismissing your point totally though. The planning process in Ireland has frequently been guilty of doing (a lot) more harm than good but this is more down to corruption, incompetence and the embracing of various fads by planners rather than any inherent flaws in the concept of planning itself.

John_Rambo

danbohan wrote: »

great idea, and if that works can we do it on a massive scale and do all of Dublin ?

Yeah, cause Dublin is just fifteen years old... All built during the celtic tiger, mock Georgian, Edwardian, Victorian... all the way thought the sixties, seventies, eighties, we recreated each era architecturally to perfection, we even laid false viking settlements before we laid the foundations of the city in 1997. We purposely made the streets really narrow with the buildings close together to get that "this was once a ancient city inhabited by Irish, English, Vikings and Normans"... All the suburbs along the coast, North and South are brand new, but we put mature trees in all the parks and roads to make them look older. We built our corporation estates outside the city to make it look really really like a big city expansion with no planing, we traveled to Paris and Barcelona to see how badly their corporation estates were doing and copied them low rise.

starbelgrade

mickdw wrote: »

It is interesting to note that every building that we are now trying to protect & most buildings that are generally regarded as examples of fine design & architecture were constructed prior to the 1963 when the planning system came into being.

Yes, but only the ones which actually are of architectural interest or design are the ones that are protected.

The house in this case, is neither, unless it was to be kept as a museum to the arrogance & "show-off-ery" of the Celtic Tiger era, where design was not led by architects and designers, but feckin eejit developers & builders with no idea of what it takes to make a building work aesthetically.

mickdw wrote: »

Things might not work out as bad as one would think. You would have no forced increases in land value due to zonong etc, no requirement for people to squash into housing estates. no banking collapse as an over heated housing market wouldnt happen.

A near free-for-all, build-as-you-like set-up, is essentially what got us into this mess. All that your suggestion does differently is to get rid of any restrictions whatsoever. I really don't see how that would help.

Sykk

I love how this thread turned from sympathy to envy when the picture was posted.

:pac:

starbelgrade

Sykk wrote: »

I love how this thread turned from sympathy to envy when the picture was posted.

:pac:

You must have strong hands from all the winding up you do.

John_Rambo

Sykk wrote: »

I love how this thread turned from sympathy to envy when the picture was posted.

:pac:

Ah, in fairness Sykk, it's not an attractive house, anyone can see that. It's horrible.

starbelgrade

I just saw on the news that the judge in the case awarded a "stay of execution" of 24 months on the demolition of the house as the husband, who is a plumber, hasn't much work on these days.

So, having less work is now an excuse to get away with breaking / disregarding the law?

"Oh, yes Judge, I know I was speeding, 45 times over the limit, off my tits on coke & driving on the wrong side of the road with no lights on and it was pitch dark, but in my defence, your honour, I'm a bit strapped for cash these days."

Stinicker

SARASON wrote: »

I kinda felt sorry for him at the start but when i seen the picture i said fcuk him:mad:

Jealous Much? Imagine the sympathy if it was a struggling single mother with a two bedroom house to be knocked, the bleeding hearts would cream themselves.

But when they see it as a large house by an obviously successful person the daggers are out and this proves the sort of begrudgers there is in the stupid backward myopic little country of ours.

This guy clearly pumped alot of money into the economy in the building of this house in vat and other charges. The planning system in this country is a complete joke and he was right to build it irregardless, if you own the land in the country then as far as i'm concerned it is the natural law that applies and not what some eco-liberal fúcktard greens think is ok; if you got money then you should be allowed build what you want.

What would the state rather do now, evict a man from his own house and leave him homeless and on dole, benefits and council houses for the rest of his life. That house should not be knocked, it is wrong and immoral and if it were me I'd defend it to the death and it would take a brave man to try and bulldoze it.

The hatred and begrudgery of anything remotely successful in this country is beyond disgusting, I wish all the hippies on here would just feck off into the mountains and live in tents because they are not living in the real world.

collegegal

Stinicker wrote: »

The planning system in this country is a complete joke and he was right to build it irregardless, if you own the land in the country then as far as i'm concerned it is the natural law that applies and not what some eco-liberal fúcktard greens think is ok; if you got money then you should be allowed build what you want.

So basically your saying "**** the law, do what you want because you have a few quid". Its people like you and the family in question that have themselves in situations like this.

starbelgrade

Stinicker wrote: »

Jealous Much? Imagine the sympathy if it was a struggling single mother with a two bedroom house to be knocked, the bleeding hearts would cream themselves.

But when they see it as a large house by an obviously successful person the daggers are out and this proves the sort of begrudgers there is in the stupid backward myopic little country of ours.

This guy clearly pumped alot of money into the economy in the building of this house in vat and other charges. The planning system in this country is a complete joke and he was right to build it irregardless, if you own the land in the country then as far as i'm concerned it is the natural law that applies and not what some eco-liberal fúcktard greens think is ok; if you got money then you should be allowed build what you want.

What would the state rather do now, evict a man from his own house and leave him homeless and on dole, benefits and council houses for the rest of his life. That house should not be knocked, it is wrong and immoral and if it were me I'd defend it to the death and it would take a brave man to try and bulldoze it.

The hatred and begrudgery of anything remotely successful in this country is beyond disgusting, I wish all the hippies on here would just feck off into the mountains and live in tents because they are not living in the real world.

He was a plumber. He welded bits of pipes together, overcharged people for it & made enough money out of it to build a f*ck off house as testament to it, without any regard for the law, the landscape or his neighbours.

And having money is no excuse to do what the f*ck you like, no matter who you are.

Now he's a broke plumber, with an over-sized house & no planning permission. What goes around...

Stinicker

collegegal wrote: »

So basically your saying "**** the law, do what you want because you have a few quid". Its people like you and the family in question that have themselves in situations like this.

No, but people with money should be treated differently. As a firm beleiver in classism there is far too much egalitarianism in this country and if you got it flaunt it as far as I am concerned. Money makes the world go round not crusties in an bord pleanala who wouldn't be left working in McDonalds for one day and are not in the real world.

starbelgrade

Stinicker wrote: »

No, but people with money should be treated differently. As a firm beleiver in classism there is far too much egalitarianism in this country and if you got it flaunt it as far as I am concerned. Money makes the world go round not crusties in an bord pleanala who wouldn't be left working in McDonalds for one day and are not in the real world.

Well, now that he's essentially broke, by your logic, there should actually be no reason why he should be allowed keep the house either.

He hasn't got it now, so he shouldn't be flaunting it. Unless he wants to do so from a council house.

collegegal

Stinicker wrote: »

if you got it flaunt it as far as I am concerned. Money makes the world go round

Yeah thats all well and good stinicker, if you've got it flaunt it...buy a car, sure even buy a big house...no need to go breaking planning regulations and laws by building something that has no planning permission, big or small! They knew what they were doing and now have to pay the consequences.

Run_to_da_hills

He should get it insured and then set it on fire.

Stinicker

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

He should get it insured and then set it on fire.

So committing Insurance fraud is better than fighting to keep the house, facepalm moment.

bytey

50 quid it goes up in flames due to bad wiring at some stage

ODS

That illegal monstrosity is a symptom of the ills that begot this country over the last decade - a big greedy unsustainable unnecessary material aspiration that celebrated giving two fingers to the rest of civic society... And as with the climate from which it emerged, it too now comes crashing down...

Boo-hoo.

Zen65

Stinicker wrote: »

But when they see it as a large house by an obviously successful person the daggers are out and this proves the sort of begrudgers there is in the stupid backward myopic little country of ours.

This thread certainly changed tides when the picture was posted, and that's an interesting study in its own right.

I think people initially read the story and thought about a family home, two parents trying to build a future for themselves and their children and fighting what they thought was a bureaucratic system.

Then the picture changed the context. Suddenly the scale of the house became clear, and most people here have an understanding of what it must have cost to build that house. 6,220 square feet is a huge house, at least three times the size of a standard "large" detached house in any city.

So, if they could have built such a huge house, they had money, and if they had money they had options. Now the sympathy factor starts to wain as the mindset of a person who would defy the planning authorities became clearer. Is it begrudgery?? I don't know, but there's no doubt the sympathy faded into the mist when it was clear that the family situation was brought about by sheer bloody-mindedness.

Poor planning costs all of us. Ireland has proportionately very high infrastructure costs compared to our European neighbours because (among other factors) our population is living in a dispersed pattern unmatched in Europe. Check with An Post, Bord Gáis Networks, ESB Networks, or the Department of Transport and you'll see that the km of infrastructure (road, water, gas, electricity, postal delivery, etc) per person needed to service our population is extremely high, because our housing is so dispersed.

This family was foolish, and selfish. They had options that very many families do not have (that's my opinion - based on the cost of this house) but chose to defy the planing laws and expected to receive all of the services that other home dwellers receive.

I don't consider that it's begrudgery that changed the tone of this thread, I think it was just the context becoming clearer.

Be at peace,

Z

Zen65

Stinicker wrote: »

No, but people with money should be treated differently. As a firm beleiver in classism there is far too much egalitarianism in this country and if you got it flaunt it as far as I am concerned.

I believe you are being sarcastic, Stinicker. Am I right?

Love humour,

Z