Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

AndrewJRenko · 07-08-2020 9:44pm

rn wrote: »

It's a good point, but correct up to a point. Prices are what's drying a lot of people to these too.

The lower up-front cost hides additional running costs, both for the occupant and for society at large.

Donald Trump · 07-08-2020 9:52pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's also unsustainable from a transport point of view. It creates a car-bound culture, where every shopping trip, every family trip, every play date, every school run, every football training HAS to be done by private car, with no other option available. That in turn creates a huge imposition on enabling car transport. It results in towns and villages dying off completely, as most shopping is done in the out-of-town retail park, not the local shops.

Yeah.....not quite true and a bit simplistic.

You'll find that people in towns tend to spend a lot longer in their cars and to take unnecessary trips "nipping down to the local shop" than your average rural dweller. Plenty of rural people would still do a weekly big shop.

Plenty of rural kids would cycle or walk places. Go to the average housing estate and there'll be two cars outside it.

StackSteevens · 08-08-2020 6:20pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Yeah.....not quite true and a bit simplistic.

You'll find that people in towns tend to spend a lot longer in their cars and to take unnecessary trips "nipping down to the local shop" than your average rural dweller. Plenty of rural people would still do a weekly big shop.

Plenty of rural kids would cycle or walk places.

Also, Renko's reference to the "car-bound culture" for every school run suggests that he's never heard of school buses which pick up rural dwelling kids from close to or directly outside their houses and bring them and from school.

dubrov · 08-08-2020 6:34pm

StackSteevens wrote:

Also, Renko's reference to the "car-bound culture" for every school run suggests that he's never heard of school buses which pick up rural dwelling kids from close to or directly outside their houses and bring them and from school.

You're not seriously arguing that rural dwellers drive less that their urban counterparts?

Donald Trump · 08-08-2020 9:48pm

dubrov wrote: »

You're not seriously arguing that rural dwellers drive less that their urban counterparts?

The ones that live and work in rural areas definitely spend less time in their cars than urban dwellers.

The ones who live in rural areas and commute daily to cities spend magnitudes more time in cars.

That is a reason why the former can be allowed to build locally - "rural needs" - and the latter are generally not.

StupidLikeAFox · 09-08-2020 12:29am

So......did they knock the house yet?

Hotblack Desiato · 09-08-2020 1:47pm

Bass Reeves wrote: »

As well the vast majority of Public servants are are based in Dublin and again even though they are providing services don the country there taxes are allocated to Dublin.

Not true. The majority of public servants are based outside Dublin.

Yellow_Fern · 09-08-2020 2:25pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

If people paid more for your food and nobody would need a subsidy.

Subsidies are for the benefit of the consumer. That is why they were brought in and that is how it panned out.

They should be scrapped. They are not exactly keeping the beef sector afloat either are they

AndrewJRenko · 09-08-2020 3:38pm

StackSteevens wrote: »

Also, Renko's reference to the "car-bound culture" for every school run suggests that he's never heard of school buses which pick up rural dwelling kids from close to or directly outside their houses and bring them and from school.

Thanks for the reminder. Another €200 million subsidy of rural dwellers by the State, whereas those who live in populated areas need to cover their own costs of transport to and from school.

Lockheed · 09-08-2020 7:24pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Thanks for the reminder. Another €200 million subsidy of rural dwellers by the State, whereas those who live in populated areas need to cover their own costs of transport to and from school.

My sister goes to school on the other side of Navan. No buses, but sure if we lived way out in the feck arse sticks of Meath we'd be well serviced by a school bus! An absolute joke.

09-08-2020 8:20pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

They should be scrapped. They are not exactly keeping the beef sector afloat either are they

Its to ensure food remains at an affordable price for the consumer as the user already pointed out. What dont you get about that? You think the beef, lamb and pork on your table is really that cheap to produce?

Jeez, Im a city boy and even I understand the concept

Darc19 · 09-08-2020 8:37pm

On the point of subsidy, the taxsaver subsidy for the heavily subsidised Dublin area public transport is a substantial cost to the exchequer.

But because it a tax free item, it is not listed as a subsidy.

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.

Of course we won't mention all the electricity that is generated in the rural areas for the dubs or the fact that most Dublin water comes from outside Dublin - and they also want the Shannon water too.

Or maybe the whiners will actually accept that it's swings and roundabouts and they would not survive without us rural folk.

dubrov · 09-08-2020 9:20pm

Darc19 wrote: »

On the point of subsidy, the taxsaver subsidy for the heavily subsidised Dublin area public transport is a substantial cost to the exchequer.

But because it a tax free item, it is not listed as a subsidy.

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.

Of course we won't mention all the electricity that is generated in the rural areas for the dubs or the fact that most Dublin water comes from outside Dublin - and they also want the Shannon water too.

Or maybe the whiners will actually accept that it's swings and roundabouts and they would not survive without us rural folk.

So many chips, so few shoulders

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!)

JG009 · 11-08-2020 9:44pm

Any update on the actual topic?

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..

Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

Comments