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

baldbear

A 3 year jail sentence with a bit suspended and let him keep the house,

supermonkey

Sykk wrote: »

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

:pac:

You must have plenty of money from the goats that go over your bridge.

ricman

I PRESUME he built it did not tell the council, no inspection needed,
perhaps he thought no one would notice a 6000sq ft house.Tis very discreet, he should have grown a large hedge in front .
i can t have sympathy for someone who spends 300k plus building an illlegal structure .

supermonkey

Stinicker wrote: »

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's not successful he's broke. He's a loser. He was never rich only badword rich.

supermonkey

Stinicker wrote: »

if you got it flaunt it as far as I am concerned.

He's broke dumb5hit.

[Deleted User]

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Yes we should just build where ever the hell we like.

all he built was a house, should be exemptions on the design and looser restrictions on the size of homes

we have some of the smallest crappy houses in the developed world FACT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8201900.stm
http://www.demographia.com/db-intlhouse.htm

http://www.finfacts.com/irishfinancenews/article_10004604.shtml
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1016135.shtml

European Housing Review 2009: Ireland has floor areas per person of a fifth less than Western European average

Stupid, backwards system encourages smaller kips of houses, dormer bungalows spread across the land and lego block estates

Stinicker

supermonkey wrote: »

He's not successful he's broke. He's a loser. He was never rich only badword rich.

How do you know this? Do you know this guy personally? Or is it sheer conjecture because it said in the newstory he was out of work for two years? For all we know he could be a multi millionaire and it is fairly obvious the guy is quite well off because if he built the house with debt and is now out of work for two years (which is stated) then I am sure they couldn't care what happens as the house would probably be going for foreclosure by now and why bother spending even more thousands on legal fees fighting the case, going to the High Court ain't cheap you know.

You sound like a typical begrudger who is taking great satisfaction at watching someone lose something that you may never have, no different to a scumbag who keys someones shiny new BMW just becuase they can afford it to begin with.

starbelgrade

skywalker_208 wrote: »

ESB do not ask for planning details. All you need to send them is your application form and a cert from your electrician.
He likely has his own well and sewerage system so didnt need connecting to any local infrastructure.

He didn't have his own well, or sewerage system, which is part of the problem - the oversized house is a drain (excuse the pun) on the shared services of the local residents.

dr.bollocko

supermonkey wrote: »

He's broke dumb5hit.

Posting permission revoked.

Lu Tze

starbelgrade wrote: »

He didn't have his own well, or sewerage system, which is part of the problem - the oversized house is a drain (excuse the pun) on the shared services of the local residents.

How so?

starbelgrade

Stinicker wrote: »

You sound like a typical begrudger who is taking great satisfaction at watching someone lose something that you may never have, no different to a scumbag who keys someones shiny new BMW just becuase they can afford it to begin with.

That's a very poor analogy. A more accurate one would be to compare the guy who built an illegal structure to the guy who keys a car, as both are lawbreakers who think they can do what they like, when they like & where they like.

Respecting the law is not begrudgery. Even you know that.

starbelgrade

Lu Tze wrote: »

How so?

One of the reasons why he was refused permission in the first place, according to the article;

In May 2007, the council refused retention permission on grounds it would result in excessive density of development and excessive concentration of waste water treatment systems in an unserviced rural area,

Stinicker

starbelgrade wrote: »

That's a very poor analogy. A more accurate one would be to compare the guy who built an illegal structure to the guy who keys a car, as both are lawbreakers who think they can do what they like, when they like & where they like.

Respecting the law is not begrudgery. Even you know that.

The laws stands for everybody equally, however people are just loving this to see a guy "being brought down to earth" wheras there would be outrage if it was single mother with a tiny house. The correct term for this inane thinking is actually reverse snobbery, but begrudgery is at the root of it all.

Lu Tze

starbelgrade wrote: »

One of the reasons why he was refused permission in the first place, according to the article;

They are fairly blinded with whats possible with reed beds etc. the effluent would be clean leaving his premises. What a joke of a refusal.

The councils have taken against one of housing for the last 15 years or so, making it extremely difficult to get planning (2 of my brothers and one sister have built houses at home).

They are still pushing large developments, even when they don't seem to work.

starbelgrade

Stinicker wrote: »

The laws stands for everybody equally, however people are just loving this to see a guy "being brought down to earth" wheras there would be outrage if it was single mother with a tiny house. The correct term for this inane thinking is actually reverse snobbery, but begrudgery is at the root of it all.

I wouldn't have any sympathy for anybody who builds a house illegally & expects to get away with. It's not like there are, or were, no other options but to do so.

I don't care if this guy is a billionaire, or a single parent on benefits. I don't suffer from snobbery in any form, be it snobbery or reverse snobbery, and I don't think that people should be treated differently because of their bank balances, unlike yourself....

Stinicker wrote: »

people with money should be treated differently.

Lizzzard

Don't feel one bit sorry for him or his wife.

My folks have been trying to get planning permission for the last 4 years and are still waiting. Lets say they get permission for something other than what they had planned, and then they go off and built what they originally planned. This would be AGAINST THE LAW, and would allow the courts, if deemed necessary, to demolish the house without my folks being able to do anything about it. It would be completely their fault. Luckily my folks aren't stupid like this chap.

"It was “in desperation” they decided to proceed and build the house and their only motive was to secure a safe and nice place in which to bring up their children."
They also knew that they were putting their entire family at risk of being homeless by building this, knowing it could be taken off them, or as this has turned out, having to demolish their home.

One word for Michael and Rose Murray, idiots!

walshb

I read about this, and have to say, who the **** was advising or NOT advising these people? It's hard to be all that sympathetic with them, but they are still people who
are now faced with major problems, so for that I would sympathise with them.

Even the judge saw how difficult it was for them. However, he also made it clear that
this wasn't a minor breach, but a flagrant breach of the planning laws.

Stunning home too; damn shame, but how they ever thought they'd get
away with this defies belief.

starbelgrade

walshb wrote: »

I read about this, and have to say, who the **** was advising or NOT advising these people?

Their architects, I would imagine. I would also put money on it that they were advised strongly not to go ahead with the build.

walshb

The Davestator wrote: »

I dont understand how you can have zero sympathy for a family having to demolish their home?

Yes, he was stupid, but a sizeable charity donation or community service would serve more purpose than the cost of knocking it down etc.

There's far bigger crooks in this counrty than this fella who are getting away with a lot worse...

I see your point, but the laws are there for a very very good reason, and they cannot
be seen to be laws that will be bypassed, laughed at etc. It's tough, but the judge had
no option here.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

all he built was a house, should be exemptions on the design and looser restrictions on the size of homes

we have some of the smallest crappy houses in the developed world FACT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8201900.stm
http://www.demographia.com/db-intlhouse.htm

http://www.finfacts.com/irishfinancenews/article_10004604.shtml
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1016135.shtml

Stupid, backwards system encourages smaller kips of houses, dormer bungalows spread across the land and lego block estates

The house is 6,500 sq. ft.

Those figures would be skewed by box sized apartments and tiny 3/4 bed semis built during the bubble.

walshb

starbelgrade wrote: »

Their architects, I would imagine. I would also put money on it that they were advised strongly not to go ahead with the build.

Yeah, I reckon this was more arrogance than ignorance to be honest.
Seriously, I know there are some dodgy lawyers out there, but it
would take a real ****ing dummy to advise these people to go ahead after
what happened with the first half sized property.

ejmaztec

The guy must know the planning laws inside out at this stage, Judging by the amount of refusals he's had on the planning applications on this link, which shows probably more than one Michael Murray.

Perhaps he got so pissed off not getting his own way, he decided to go for broke, and thought "fuck the consequences".

http://www.meath.ie/ePlan41/SearchResults.aspx

walshb

ejmaztec wrote: »

The guy must know the planning laws inside out at this stage, Judging by the amount of refusals he's had on the planning applications on this link, which shows probably more than one Michael Murray.

Perhaps he got so pissed off not getting his own way, he decided to go for broke, and thought "fuck the consequences".

http://www.meath.ie/ePlan41/SearchResults.aspx

He should have got Pamela Izewayu' on the case, I am sure she would have got
this thing dragged on for years, eventually leading to them keeping the house

saltandpepper10

just to clarify a few facts about the builder of this house as i know him fairly well.he has not yet reached 40 but made a serious amount of money from sheer hard work over a 20 year period which i think should be applauded.for the record i would say he still has a few quid[none of my buisiness]it was built to the highest standards way above building regs of 05/06 he has done wrong which he knows himself but mark my words he will rise again from this temperery setback and will never need social housing .

ejmaztec

saltandpepper10 wrote: »

just to clarify a few facts about the builder of this house as i know him fairly well.he has not yet reached 40 but made a serious amount of money from sheer hard work over a 20 year period which i think should be applauded.for the record i would say he still has a few quid[none of my buisiness]it was built to the highest standards way above building regs of 05/06 he has done wrong which he knows himself but mark my words he will rise again from this temperery setback and will never need social housing .

:eek:

Lizzzard

saltandpepper10 wrote: »

just to clarify a few facts about the builder of this house.he has not yet reached 40 but made a serious amount of money from sheer hard work over a 20 year period which i think should be applauded. it was built to the highest standards way above building regs of 05/06 he has done wrong which he knows himself.

I don't think anyone is going to be applauding this guy seeing as he knowingly built a house on grounds which didn't have planning permission for what he was building.
That's called not doing your job right, maybe it's breaking the law too, but he already knew that he was doing a dodgy deed here like you said, right?

Also, how many other dodgy deeds has this guy done over his 20 years of
"sheer hard work" to earn his "serious amount of money"?

I don't think it matters what standards he built this house to either, what was done was AGAINST THE LAW!!!!

changes

I have a tiny bit of sympathy but not much.

He should have to knock it - building it twice the size was the killer... i'd love to have seen the judges face when he found out the man built it twice the size.

Its one thing building a foot or 2 too high or building a metre forward or back but to build a house when it was refused and even worse to build it twice the size is madness.

If this house isn't knocked then why even bother going for planning.

Run_to_da_hills

Will the state "play around" with this guy in future? Whats the chances of him getting planning if he intends apply legitimately?

He has a hell of a lot of salvageable materials that could be used in a future development that would otherwise be be worth little or nothing to anyone else.

walshb

saltandpepper10 wrote: »

who would go in and knock this house?they would want to be very stuck for a days wages.i live not too far away from this house and my own belief is it will never be demolished,he locals will do everything in there power to frustrate demolition work commencing

You underestimate the power of the courts, the land and the people. This will be demolished, and rightly so. What next, anarchy because they didn't get their way?

No matter what frustrations they MAY encounter, it will be met with and dealt with by
the law.

mikemac

Seems an awful same to knock it.

Could Meath Co. Council maybe make an offer to buy it cost price and split into flats for social housing? You could fit a few families there. Meath has a long waiting list as do most counties.
You could probably split the house up, the owner gets their money back and it's not demolished.

Most won't go with this idea I suppose