Court orders demolition of family home.

Run_to_da_hills · 29-06-2010 7:29pm #1

"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

Sulmac · 29-06-2010 7:31pm

Did they think they were above the law or something?

Level of sympathy = zero.

TheZohanS · 29-06-2010 7:33pm

the council became aware a large house of some 588 square metres (6,229 sq feet) had been built on the lands and the Murrays were living there

“a very large and imposing stone clad two-storey dwelling house with a curved drive leading up to it and extensive laws in front of it”

Tough.

super_furry · 29-06-2010 7:33pm

Why did he build it when he was refused permission? Staggering arrogance.

mariaf24 · 29-06-2010 7:33pm

I know what they did was wrong but I feel very sorry for them. It's a bit unfair and such a waste of a house. We put up with terrible crap with planning when we were building our home so I can understand their frustration.

The Shtig · 29-06-2010 7:36pm

I don't feel sorry for the eeejit that decides to go ahead building the house even though he was refused but i do feel sorry for the children having to suffer from the stupidity of their parents.

Run_to_da_hills · 29-06-2010 7:36pm

Sulmac wrote: »

Did they think they were above the law or something?

Level of sympathy = zero.

Sometimes the law can be an ass.

LookingFor · 29-06-2010 7:38pm

My thoughts are the same as those re. the guy in Britain who built a castle covertly and was then told to knock it down.

i.e. no sympathy.

If you're refused planning permission and then go ahead and build something twice the size as those refused plans, you're just goading for trouble.

Absurdum · 29-06-2010 7:38pm

mariaf24 wrote: »

It's a bit unfair and such a waste of a house.

and it's all their own fault LOL

starbelgrade · 29-06-2010 7:39pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Sometimes the law can be an ass.

And quite often those who break the law are asses too.

Bob the Seducer · 29-06-2010 7:40pm

I'm not sure at what point "turned down planning for a house on this site... to hell with it I'll build one twice as big!" could ever have seemed like a good idea.

This isn't the first time this has happened.

Lesson: if you don't get permission, don't build it, if you really want to waste your money have a bonfire with it instead.

Cookie_Monster · 29-06-2010 7:40pm

I bet the reasoning was build it anyway and apply for retention.

Its a waste of a house thats probably much better built that a lot of the ****e around but I have zero sympathy for the guy

Of course, it'll be appealed upwards and not have to be knocked in the end...

starbelgrade · 29-06-2010 7:40pm

The Shtig wrote: »

I don't feel sorry for the eeejit that decides to go ahead building the house even though he was refused but i do feel sorry for the children having to suffer from the stupidity of their parents.

Every kid has to suffer from the stupidity of their parents. Such is life!

Mike 1972 · 29-06-2010 7:41pm

Court orders demolition of family home House.

Fixed your thread Title..............

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If I were him I would walk away from it and let the travellers move in

Not a bad idea on paper but ultimately.........

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

and without planning permission wouldn't be worth a fcuk and would cost heaps to knock it and clear the rubble.

Which I believe he can be held liable for if the council end up doing the work.

The Davestator · 29-06-2010 7:43pm

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...

mariaf24 · 29-06-2010 7:43pm

Again,I do have sympathy for anyone with 3 children who will have to knock their family home. I would consider that very traumatising for children. Surely a severe fine or something else could have been done.
On another note, I always believed that in order to get ESB you needed to prove planning permission? I would agree that the only way they built it was with applying for retention in mind.

Run_to_da_hills · 29-06-2010 7:43pm

At least he very was blatant about it didn't try to cover it up.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/lawreports/7147769/Hidden-castle-must-be-demolished-court-rules.html

Sulmac · 29-06-2010 7:46pm

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...

If they let them get away with it, it would set a precedent whereby anyone who wanted to could build a house anywhere if they could afford a fine/donation or had the time for community service.

It's a classic "floodgates" argument.

Bob the Seducer · 29-06-2010 7:50pm

Building without permission is breaking the law, sticking two fingers up to the law by building a structure twice the size of the one you got turned down for doesn't score you bonus points in court.
Refusing to comply with a court order to demolish can result in this. It doesn't matter if it's a house or a shed.

Run_to_da_hills · 29-06-2010 7:54pm

Sulmac wrote: »

If they let them get away with it, it would set a precedent whereby anyone who wanted to could build a house anywhere if they could afford a fine/donation or had the time for community service.

It's a classic "floodgates" argument.

With the state of the economy and so many vacant houses in the country It would be more a trickle than a floodgate.

mariaf24 · 29-06-2010 7:57pm

I can't understand why a decent family who want to build a home and pay a mortgage face such ridiculous planning restrictions in the first place.

jam_mac_jam · 29-06-2010 7:59pm

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...

Maybe it will stop people from doing it in future? Why should people get away with a fine just because there is worse laws being broken. Its their own fault, they only did it because they thought they would get away with it.

jam_mac_jam · 29-06-2010 7:59pm

mariaf24 wrote: »

I can't understand why a decent family who want to build a home and pay a mortgage face such ridiculous planning restrictions in the first place.

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

saltandpepper10 · 29-06-2010 8:00pm

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

Mike 1972 · 29-06-2010 8:00pm

mariaf24 wrote: »

I can't understand why a decent family

Know them personally do we ?

mariaf24 wrote: »

who want to build a home and pay a mortgage face such ridiculous planning restrictions in the first place.

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

saltandpepper10 wrote: »

who would go in and knock this house? they would want to be very stuck for a days wages

400,000-odd people spring to mind.........

starbelgrade · 29-06-2010 8:00pm

mariaf24 wrote: »

I can't understand why a decent family who want to build a home and pay a mortgage face such ridiculous planning restrictions in the first place.

Why? Because decency & the ability to get a bank loan should be the only obstructions to building whatever the hell you like?

Nice logic.

29-06-2010 8:01pm

mariaf24 wrote: »

I can't understand why a decent family who want to build a home and pay a mortgage face such ridiculous planning restrictions in the first place.

There's nothing 'decent' about being pricks and breaking the restrictions by building a house TWICE THE SIZE. That's a serious "f*k you" if ever I heard one.

mariaf24 · 29-06-2010 8:02pm

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

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

I meant general restrictions, i have a list here, to the size of our kitchen windows to the distance from the door to the stairs.

Run_to_da_hills · 29-06-2010 8:02pm

mariaf24 wrote: »

I can't understand why a decent family who want to build a home and pay a mortgage face such ridiculous planning restrictions in the first place.

According to 6/1 news he is currently barely able to find work and was given 2 years to remove the property. The state will probably end up having to house himand his family at taxpayers expense.

starbelgrade · 29-06-2010 8:03pm

mariaf24 wrote: »

I meant general restrictions, i have a list here, to the size of our kitchen windows to the distance from the door to the stairs.

Sounds like a big list. I hope you have planning for that.

ejmaztec · 29-06-2010 8:06pm

Perhaps the brown envelope didn't have enough cash in it. It's always a problem knowing how much to give them. You win some, you lose some.

Mike 1972 · 29-06-2010 8:06pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

. The state will probably end up having to house himand his family at taxpayers expense.

Unless it can be deemed that they made themselves homeless...............

mariaf24 · 29-06-2010 8:06pm

I am just saying that we have been through it and it is very very frustrating. I am not agreeing with what they did.
And like the OP said,they will probably now need to be re-homed by the council at the taxpayers expense.

jam_mac_jam · 29-06-2010 8:07pm

mariaf24 wrote: »

I meant general restrictions, i have a list here, to the size of our kitchen windows to the distance from the door to the stairs.

have you seen the house in question? its dreadful no wonder it was refused.

mariaf24 · 29-06-2010 8:08pm

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

have you seen the house in question? its dreadful no wonder it was refused.

Yes, saw it briefly on the news.

Gunsfortoys · 29-06-2010 8:10pm

At least it will create a few construction jobs.;)

Poor Uncle Tom · 29-06-2010 8:13pm

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

At least it will create a few construction jobs.;)

Demolition jobs...;)

TimberMerchant · 29-06-2010 8:19pm

I totally agree it should be taken down, i spent 2 years looking for planning, and also what about council contributions which he would not of paid either. I know the rip off large sum i had to pay. (And building the house twice the original size was the real 2 finger salute!) I note An Bord Pleanala also turned him down.:rolleyes:

jam_mac_jam · 29-06-2010 8:27pm

TimberMerchant wrote: »

I totally agree it should be taken down, i spent 2 years looking for planning, and also what about council contributions which he would not of paid either. I know the rip off large sum i had to pay. (And building the house twice the original size was the real 2 finger salute!) I note An Bord Pleanala also turned him down.:rolleyes:

Exactly, everyone else has to go through the hassle but somehow this guy thinks he is above it and then people feel sorry for him.

reprazant · 29-06-2010 8:32pm

mariaf24 wrote: »

I meant general restrictions, i have a list here, to the size of our kitchen windows to the distance from the door to the stairs.

They are now in place due to the horrific dynasty style houses that people used to build.

Now, the houses have to be in keeping with the surrounding areas.

I have no sympathy for him at all and I cannot believe that people are saying that the house should not be thorn down.

snubbleste · 29-06-2010 8:36pm

I don't get why the media are referring to this as a family home rather than an illegally constructed building.
Is rté biased? :cool:

RATM · 29-06-2010 8:37pm

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

So now you condone the homeowners law breaking by conducting some law breaking of your own, ie acting to prevent a court order to be carried out. Any local who tries to impede demolition efforts will be held in contempt of court and imprisoned. And rightly so.

snubbleste · 29-06-2010 8:40pm

The humble abode constructed by a poor working man to house his family

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/192/bungalownoppvb9.jpg

Poor Uncle Tom · 29-06-2010 8:45pm

snubbleste wrote: »

I don't get why the media are referring to this as a family home rather than an illegally constructed building.
Is rté biased? :cool:

That's just to put a sympathetic angle on the story. This tool went outside the laws, he didn't just build a house without planning permission, he applied for permission for a house and when he was refused he stuck two fingers up at the system and built a house twice the size. Was he thinking about his family then? How did he actually fund this build? He couldn't have had a mortgage as planning permission would have been needed. Did he think that because he had the money he could do what he wanted?

29-06-2010 8:47pm

Down in Kerry I saw a house which was specified in the planning application as a one and a half storey house, but when built it is clearly a 2 storey house. It's built in a rural area and looks like a town house. Very out of character with the area.

joewicklow · 29-06-2010 8:48pm

snubbleste wrote: »

The humble abode constructed by a poor working man to house his family

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/192/bungalownoppvb9.jpg

Thats unreal. How do the 3 kids not get lost?

JDxtra · 29-06-2010 9:00pm

He has built on shaky foundations and now the whole thing will come down. Its a very expensive lesson.

Run_to_da_hills · 29-06-2010 9:04pm

snubbleste wrote: »

I don't get why the media are referring to this as a family home rather than an illegally constructed building.
Is rté biased? :cool:

The family home would be the property that he and his family would be currently living in.

This would be opposed to investment and other properties.

laugh · 29-06-2010 9:08pm

Big balcony over the front door, fuckin JR Ewing style.

laugh · 29-06-2010 9:12pm

joewicklow wrote: »

Thats unreal. How do the 3 kids not get lost?

iphones with gps Joe.

starbelgrade · 29-06-2010 9:20pm

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

Court orders demolition of family home.

Comments