Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

cnocbui · 10-08-2020 1:11am

dubrov wrote: »

So many chips, so few shoulders

Boardsies who go on about one off rural houses have more shoulders than Shiva. Pot - kettle.

Hotblack Desiato · 10-08-2020 1:53am

Darc19 wrote: »

Of course we won't mention all the electricity that is generated in the rural areas for the dubs

Ooh yeah, lovin' that free rural leccy we suck up :rolleyes:

or the fact that most Dublin water comes from outside Dublin - and they also want the Shannon water too.

It doesn't matter a fcuk where it comes from, it's all paid for. Water charges would have made this more transparent, but due to an outbreak of mass stupidity we are where we are. Imagine if electricity wasn't metered?

looksee · 10-08-2020 2:16am

Mellor wrote: »

You don't need a survey done when selling. And they certainly don't compare it to what was there before.
Planning likely wasn't required. What you are describing isn't an issue.

I doubt they'd have to knock it, from a planning perspective at least. Doesn't sound large enough to require planning. Although it may not be up to scratch in terms of building regs.

Have you sold a house recently?

Mellor · 10-08-2020 3:14am

looksee wrote: »

Have you sold a house recently?

Nope. But I don't see how that's relevant to what I said about planning laws.

AndrewJRenko · 10-08-2020 2:12pm

cnocbui wrote: »

Boardsies who go on about one off rural houses have more shoulders than Shiva. Pot - kettle.

While I disagree with your thinking, that's a great line!

Darc19 wrote: »

Then you have the tax deductible cycle allowance. Another Dublin centric subsidy for people who flout the rules of the road day in and day out.

I presume you disagree with all state investment going into motorways and roads, given that most motorists break speed limits and use their phones while driving, right?

Gaspode · 11-08-2020 9:33pm

ok folks lets get back on topic, ie an illegally built house. (I think!)

StackSteevens · 18-09-2020 8:49pm

Another gobsh1te here:-

https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2020/0915/1165283-kerry-planning-protest/

And another:-

https://evoke.ie/2020/07/27/showbiz/mary-coughlan-forced-to-demolish-buildings-on-her-property-by-council

Is it naivity, stupidity or sheer brass neck that leads some people to act as though they are completely exempt from Irish Planning Legislation?

Gaspode · 19-09-2020 2:26pm

All of the above Id say.

Muahahaha · 19-09-2020 4:02pm

Mad that Mary Coughlan just thought she could build a house and call it a stable when upon inspection there was three bedrooms in it

dubrov · 19-09-2020 8:49pm

StackSteevens wrote: »

Another gobsh1te here:-

https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2020/0915/1165283-kerry-planning-protest/

And another:-

https://evoke.ie/2020/07/27/showbiz/mary-coughlan-forced-to-demolish-buildings-on-her-property-by-council

Is it naivity, stupidity or sheer brass neck that leads some people to act as though they are completely exempt from Irish Planning Legislation?

Well given none of them appear to have actually had to demolish the structures and appear to be using them for years, they may be smarter than you think

cnocbui · 19-09-2020 10:10pm

StackSteevens wrote: »

Another gobsh1te here:-

https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2020/0915/1165283-kerry-planning-protest/

And another:-

https://evoke.ie/2020/07/27/showbiz/mary-coughlan-forced-to-demolish-buildings-on-her-property-by-council

Is it naivity, stupidity or sheer brass neck that leads some people to act as though they are completely exempt from Irish Planning Legislation?

Perhaps the problem might lie with the planning system and regulations in this country being unreasonably restrictive and burdensome.

And you can add a former President of this country to your list of gobsh1tes:

A jetty has been built at President Mary McAleese's holiday home in Co Roscommon in an apparent breach of planning regulations. One of the conditions set down by An Bord Pleanala in 2002 before granting permission for the house was that the McAleeses undertake not to carry out any further development work on the site. Despite this, and although the president stated in her planning application that she would not be building a jetty, one has now been constructed. Environmentalists are demanding Roscommon county council investigates how it came to be built.

https://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.org/papers-today/36-planning/8906-

The Irish government has found the planning system such a pile of dung that in order to progress it's aims for renewable energy it had to exempt domestic solar panels from the purview of the planning dogs who use the regulations to impose their civic vision on society:

In May 2017, Ms Pasinska installed the 21 panels on her roof without realising that planning permission is required for panels that take up more than 12 square metres – seven panels – or 50 per cent of the roof area.

The mother of three young girls applied for permission for retention, stating that 21 panels were required to meet her home’s energy requirements. she argued that she would need to supplement power needs with fossil fuels if she were only allowed to keep seven panels installed.

Her application was refused by the council, with the Board siding with the council’s decision on appeal. In her decision, senior planning inspector Mary Kennelly said that the “scale and extent” of the panels would affect the townscape and character of the estate.

She said that the cumulative effect of additional roof slopes being covered by PV panels in the estate would likely “further alter the character” of the estate and result in “visual disharmony and clutter”.

https://greennews.ie/landmark-planning-rooftop-solar/

As a result of this sort of nonsense, the government had to amend the legislation to exempt solar panels and so pull the dogs teeth. Pity they didn't reform the legislation completely and reduce it's scope.

robinbird · 19-09-2020 11:27pm

Kind of makes a mockery of the planning system when people like the Murrays can build mansions on agricultural land without permission.

Is it the case that if they just wait a few more years that they will be exempt from enforcement proceedings and will not have to knock it.

Assume at this stage many years after it has been built that it will not be demolished and Meath County Council will take no action.

AndrewJRenko · 20-09-2020 3:19pm

robinbird wrote: »

Is it the case that if they just wait a few more years that they will be exempt from enforcement proceedings and will not have to knock it.

No, the clock for the exemption period stops running once legal proceedings have started.

StackSteevens · 20-09-2020 3:45pm

cnocbui wrote: »

And you can add a former President of this country to your list of gobsh1tes:

I'd be delighted to do so, except that she's been on my list for the past 20 years!

But many thanks for reminding me of this little bit of vintage McAleese hypocrisy.

El Tarangu · 20-09-2020 10:26pm

cnocbui wrote: »

Perhaps the problem might lie with the planning system and regulations in this country being unreasonably restrictive and burdensome.

And you can add a former President of this country to your list of gobsh1tes:

I genuinely don't think that:

"please don't build any piers without asking permission first"

- is a good example of an unreasonably restrictive and burdensome planning system.

Butterface · 20-09-2020 11:21pm

robinbird wrote: »

Kind of makes a mockery of the planning system when people like the Murrays can build mansions on agricultural land without permission.

Is it the case that if they just wait a few more years that they will be exempt from enforcement proceedings and will not have to knock it.

Assume at this stage many years after it has been built that it will not be demolished and Meath County Council will take no action.

Meath CoCo will let it slide..

Muahahaha · 22-09-2020 1:17pm

Butterface wrote: »

Meath CoCo will let it slide..

Would be bad news for planning in the entire county if they did, it would be a big signal to everyone else that you can build whatever you want and they wont enforce their own laws. They need to be making an example of out people who stick two fingers up to the planning laws, I know they are often arcane but plenty of people have built houses in Meath inside the laws.

chewed · 22-09-2020 2:51pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

Would be bad news for planning in the entire county if they did, it would be a big signal to everyone else that you can build whatever you want and they wont enforce their own laws. They need to be making an example of out people who stick two fingers up to the planning laws, I know they are often arcane but plenty of people have built houses in Meath inside the laws.

Couldn't agree more. No excuses for this. If you build something that you didn't get permission for, you should be forced to knock it immediately....no ifs or buts!

ELM327 · 22-09-2020 3:10pm

I disagree, this is a great victory against the nonsense that is Meath CO CO and their ridiculous local needs laws.

CrankyHaus · 22-09-2020 3:16pm

ELM327 wrote: »

I disagree, this is a great victory against the nonsense that is Meath CO CO and their ridiculous local needs laws.

Even better than that. A great victory against any laws at all. Don't follow them if you don't want to and the only consequence will be a load of taxpayers' money getting wasted in the courts.

Donald Trump · 22-09-2020 6:40pm

chewed wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. No excuses for this. If you build something that you didn't get permission for, you should be forced to knock it immediately....no ifs or buts!

Well there is an opportunity to apply for retention and I think that that should be there in general.

But if that is denied then of course it should have to be dismantled.

sydthebeat · 22-09-2020 6:47pm

ELM327 wrote: »

I disagree, this is a great victory against the nonsense that is Meath CO CO and their ridiculous local needs laws.

What victory?

The couple have been ordered to demolish the structure.

If they don't comply, next stop jail.

Widdensushi · 22-09-2020 6:53pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

What victory?

The couple have been ordered to demolish the structure.

If they don't comply, next stop jail.

They are living in the house thirteen years now, no sign of that changing

Thargor · 22-09-2020 8:56pm

Widdensushi wrote: »

They are living in the house thirteen years now, no sign of that changing

Divide the amount of money spent by 13 and it wont look like great value for money if its demolished in year 14 or 15 though...

Spanish Eyes · 22-09-2020 8:59pm

They must have connections.

Anyway, if anyone is refused planning going forward they should take a judicial review and cite the Murrays.

They can apply for retention by now I'd say. Wonder who is on the Council that they know.

Spanish Eyes · 22-09-2020 9:00pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

What victory?

The couple have been ordered to demolish the structure.

If they don't comply, next stop jail.

Enforcement of that order is the issue though.

StackSteevens · 23-09-2020 5:10pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

The couple have been ordered to demolish the structure.

If they don't comply, next stop jail.

Only if Meath County Council grows some cojones and brings them to court!

.

AndrewJRenko · 23-09-2020 6:08pm

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Even better than that. A great victory against any laws at all. Don't follow them if you don't want to and the only consequence will be a load of taxpayers' money getting wasted in the courts.

And you would take the same view if someone illegally built a mansion overlooking your property?

Mellor · 24-09-2020 2:46am

ELM327 wrote: »

I disagree, this is a great victory against the nonsense that is Meath CO CO and their ridiculous local needs laws.

This case was nothing to do with local needs.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

They can apply for retention by now I'd say.

Did you read the article/OP?
They applied for retention in 2006 and multiple other times. Council refused are took them to court.

smelly sock · 24-09-2020 4:09am

Id say the council are now wishing they had granted retention.

Widdensushi · 24-09-2020 8:50am

smelly sock wrote: »

Id say the council are now wishing they had granted retention.

If they did there would be houses popping up all over the county

cnocbui · 24-09-2020 11:18am

Widdensushi wrote: »

If they did there would be houses popping up all over the county

No there wouldn't. The public in general would never be aware they got retention. The economy could probably do with houses popping up all over the place, though that wouldn't happen either.

donspeekinglesh · 24-09-2020 3:21pm

Couple have two years to leave house built in breach of planning laws - https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/couple-have-two-years-to-leave-house-built-in-breach-of-planning-laws-1018884.html

Though the dates in the article are a bit confusing. they keep putting today's date and not 2022

Vicxas · 24-09-2020 3:47pm

https://www.meathchronicle.ie/2020/09/24/meath-couple-agree-to-leave-house-they-built-in-breach-of-planning-laws/?fbclid=IwAR3OMMQJ2a7Tyu8EEkhMFKVP3Vt5lV-_11VRkjOI1sri7A40yvTP4oHx--U

Looks like they're being turfed out alright

Bullocks · 24-09-2020 4:00pm

Does anyone really think they will be out in 2022? I don't.

StackSteevens · 24-09-2020 4:53pm

I see from the above link that Meath County Council had actually initiated High Court proceedings against the Murrays last year and would like to commend them for that.

I think that it's only fair that I also apologise for my earlier criticisms of the County Council for what I wrongly believed was its reluctance to pursue this long-running issue to a satisfactory conclusion. I really hope that, in two years' time, the Murrays will honour their sworn undertaking. ( I can't help wondering who will pay for the demolition!)

air · 24-09-2020 4:59pm

Did they get a 3 year extension last year then?
Justice delayed is justice denied surely.

deandean · 24-09-2020 5:00pm

I'll bet a fiver that house will never be demolished, and the occupants will come up with some form of a deal involving a local high-ranking politician that will lead to a compromise whereby retention will be granted, with a few added conditions such as knock down the garage.

Spanish Eyes · 24-09-2020 5:06pm

deandean wrote: »

I'll bet a fiver that house will never be demolished, and the occupants will come up with some form of a deal involving a local high-ranking politician that will lead to a compromise whereby retention will be granted, with a few added conditions such as knock down the garage.

Well if they were told to demolish half of it let's say, so as not to make them homeless, that would provide some sanction, and might be a way forward.

Not saying that's perfect by any means, but let them pay for demolition of part of it and reinstatement of the remaining smaller ordinary 3 bedroom gaff. They could also donate some of their land for social housing. (lol).

I dunno. I absolutely detest the hubris of some people who just give two fingers to the rules that everyone else has to abide by.

There are so many threads on here where people are so stressed out for building a wall, the mind boggles.

dubrov · 24-09-2020 6:19pm

Bullocks wrote:

Does anyone really think they will be out in 2022? I don't.

The mind boggles. They have already ignored about 3 court orders and now here comes the fourth. It's probably the most lax of all.

Spanish Eyes · 24-09-2020 7:56pm

dubrov wrote: »

The mind boggles. They have already ignored about 3 court orders and now here comes the fourth. It's probably the most lax of all.

Mad IMO.

When you think about the rules regarding boundaries and other easy things to solve and all that. And this is a mansion with NO planning.

I give up. But would cite this in any planning application I might have no matter where I lived.

Dempo1 · 25-09-2020 7:54am

I see an update this morning in the indo. Agreement reached, couple will live in house for two more years with an agreement to vacate it and demolition thereafter. Hard to know what to think, I agree the build of the property wrong albeit seems a little harsh after all these years to demolish it. There are young children to consider also. I guess it's a harsh, harsh lesson but an end to this saga is nearing.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/couple-agree-to-leave-a-house-they-built-in-breach-of-planning-laws-in-two-years-time-39560707.html

nophd08 · 25-09-2020 7:59am

I think demolishing the whole thing is a waste. Half would be enough along with a very substantial fine.

smelly sock · 25-09-2020 7:59am

Dempo1 wrote: »

I see an update this morning in the indo. Agreement reached, couple will live in house for two more years with an agreement to vacate it and demolition thereafter. Hard to know what to think, I agree the build of the property wrong albeit seems a little harsh after all these years to demolish it. There are young children to consider also. I guess it's a harsh, harsh lesson but an end to this saga is nearing.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/couple-agree-to-leave-a-house-they-built-in-breach-of-planning-laws-in-two-years-time-39560707.html

I tend to agree. Boards isnt known to be a bastion of empathy though.

Wtf were they thinking would be my thoughts. I'm currently looking at having an ectension to the side and no way would i even attempt to do it without PP.

Dempo1 · 25-09-2020 8:02am

nophd08 wrote: »

I think demolishing the whole thing is a waste. Half would be enough along with a very substantial fine.

Very very difficult if not impossible to vacate a supreme court order I guess. I don't know the house but by all accounts it's seems very big.

25-09-2020 8:14am

Dempo1 wrote: »

I see an update this morning in the indo. Agreement reached, couple will live in house for two more years with an agreement to vacate it and demolition thereafter. Hard to know what to think, I agree the build of the property wrong albeit seems a little harsh after all these years to demolish it. There are young children to consider also. I guess it's a harsh, harsh lesson but an end to this saga is nearing.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/couple-agree-to-leave-a-house-they-built-in-breach-of-planning-laws-in-two-years-time-39560707.html

They have been flouting the law so long the young kids are 20, 19 and 14.

Dempo1 · 25-09-2020 8:23am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They have been flouting the law so long the young kids are 20, 19 and 14.

Fair enough, just showing a little compassion.

I wonder what if any mortgage implications will occur now, I assume there's at a minimum, part mortgage on the property, The supreme Court costs must run into €100k alone, a very costly error of judgement.

sydthebeat · 25-09-2020 8:27am

Dempo1 wrote: »

Fair enough, just showing a little compassion.

I wonder what if any mortgage implications will occur now, I assume there's at a minimum, part mortgage on the property, The supreme Court costs must run into €100k alone, a very costly error of judgement.

No way they could have built that with a mortgage. No planning, no mortgage. Cash build I would wager.

Maybe make you question where the cash came from as well.

whisky_galore · 25-09-2020 8:27am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They have been flouting the law so long the young kids are 20, 19 and 14.

Lol. The "children" are shaving at this stage.

Knock the ugly thing and be done with this farce.

dubrov · 25-09-2020 9:04am

Dempo1 wrote:

I wonder what if any mortgage implications will occur now, I assume there's at a minimum, part mortgage on the property, The supreme Court costs must run into â‚¬100k alone, a very costly error of judgement.

No guarantee they will have to cover any of that legal bill. Judges have a history of writing off legal costs to keep all partys happy. Johnny taxpayer has very deep pockets

Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

Comments