Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

bb1234567 · 03-08-2020 12:50am

What I find most shocking about this is the fact that some posters saying that thing pictured in the article is 'nice'.

Pure god awful tacky pile of Celtic tiger muck. Probably for the best it'll be demolished as they'll probably go bankrupt trying to light and heat that monstrously oversized home.

Donald Trump · 03-08-2020 1:15am

Tiger20 wrote: »

Donald Trump wrote: »

They shouldn't granting permission to non-locals.
It shouldn't have mattered how many times you applied

If you knew anything, you would know that the locals only rule has been found to be illegal and discriminatory by the EU, (Flemish rule)but so far the Irish authorities have not responded to amend this, but of course that's okay as they can break the laws but no one else can. If the authorities are so keen to be lawful, and for its citizens to be lawful, then apply the law. In my particular case, I was successful eventually because I persevered through many stressful years and after loads of research, and was able to demonstrate that the granting of planning was consistent with other decisions made. Through my research I found many examples of applications granted while others refused. I have seen sites refused numerous times for different applicants, and the someone else is successful where others were told no dwelling would be allowed there. IMO, there is total inconsistency in the way the system is administered, which leads to total frustration.

I am well aware of arseholes taking cases to the EU.

My point still holds. They shouldn't be granting permission to non-locals. Simple as that.

If I were to become afflicted with some bout of sudden retardation which made me want to go and live in inner city Dublin, the chances of me getting a free house of the council would be very small.......yet if I had lived there my whole life, you can be fairly sure I'd get a nice central location close to both "me ma's" and the dole office.

Local rules are fine when it suits ya and not when it doesn't. That's about the size of it!

Let's see how you'll feel in maybe 20 years when the Council decide that there can only be one more house in the area and one of your kids wants to build to live beside you and where they grew up and went to school and play and coach in the local GAA club, only for you to be told that that one available slot is going up for raffle in an EU-wide tender and that your kid can just enter it along with a few thousand applicants from builders and speculators spread from France to Latvia. I'd say you'd change your tune fairly lively then :pac:

Homer · 03-08-2020 1:36am

bb1234567 wrote: »

What I find most shocking about this is the fact that some posters saying that thing pictured in the article is 'nice'.

Pure god awful tacky pile of Celtic tiger muck. Probably for the best it'll be demolished as they'll probably go bankrupt trying to light and heat that monstrously oversized home.

The age old adage “money can’t buy you class” was never more appropriate.

Vestiapx · 03-08-2020 1:58am

Donald Trump wrote: »

I am well aware of arseholes taking cases to the EU.

My point still holds. They shouldn't be granting permission to non-locals. Simple as that.

If I were to become afflicted with some bout of sudden retardation which made me want to go and live in inner city Dublin, the chances of me getting a free house of the council would be very small.......yet if I had lived there my whole life, you can be fairly sure I'd get a nice central location close to both "me ma's" and the dole office.

Local rules are fine when it suits ya and not when it doesn't. That's about the size of it!

Let's see how you'll feel in maybe 20 years when the Council decide that there can only be one more house in the area and one of your kids wants to build to live beside you and where they grew up and went to school and play and coach in the local GAA club, only for you to be told that that one available slot is going up for raffle in an EU-wide tender and that your kid can just enter it along with a few thousand applicants from builders and speculators spread from France to Latvia. I'd say you'd change your tune fairly lively then :pac:

The person who wants one off housing planning is not the person getting a free house in the city.

03-08-2020 2:07am

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It costs the taxpayer a lot more to provide services for one-off housing.

A lot more than what though? A lot more than building a metro underground in Dublin city centre?

Taxpayers in different areas have different needs.

Kaybaykwah · 03-08-2020 2:12am

bladespin wrote: »

Agree but there lies the problem I think, Meath is one of the most difficult places to get planning afik they really seem to go out of their way to deny rather than engage, very discouraging, leading to the ‘feck them’ attitude.

What I can't figure out is why did the county council not summon the builder to stop construction at least mid course.
You have to wonder at the crazy expense taxpayers have to deal with unless the legal bills are all on the Murrays'.

What a waste.

03-08-2020 3:58am

I presume this is the house?

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.6730856,-6.7975464,469m/data=!3m1!1e3

If so, they must not get on well with the neighbours as nobody would ever even notice it, to report it. Someone they're 'friends' with is having a serious laugh at them behind their backs.

Treppen · 03-08-2020 8:01am

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

What I can't figure out is why did the county council not summon the builder to stop construction at least mid course..

How would the council know they were building against the planning? They'd have to be watching every piece of land in Ireland.

Great move sticking the 80 year old granny in though.
Cheeky fux

lomb · 03-08-2020 8:12am

Largely I think the planning laws are nonsense. There wasn't even a need for planning pre 1963 I don't see too many monstrosities. Problem with society today is they don't tolerate land ownership rights. Everyone wants a cut of everything. Realistically there is nothing wrong with leaving this house standing practically. It would damage the environment and waste resources to remove it. Who gives a flying f what anyone thinks of enforcing rules and regs that are made up for the wrong reasons.

lawrencesummers · 03-08-2020 8:35am

lomb wrote: »

Largely I think the planning laws are nonsense. There wasn't even a need for planning pre 1963 I don't see too many monstrosities. Problem with society today is they don't tolerate land ownership rights. Everyone wants a cut of everything. Realistically there is nothing wrong with leaving this house standing practically. It would damage the environment and waste resources to remove it. Who gives a flying f what anyone thinks of enforcing rules and regs that are made up for the wrong reasons.

You might think the planning laws are nonsense until your next door neighbour decides to convert their house to a nightclub and your garden becomes a toilet.

Of somebody builds an apartment block behind you With a methadone clinic on the bottom floor and you don’t get anymore sunlight.
Or the council decides the field across from your house is an ideal place for a waste incinerator.

Planning laws exist for a reason, and a very good reason. Their application might be irrelevant and need improving but the idea that “planning laws are nonsense” is an incredible ignorant thing to say.

El Tarangu · 03-08-2020 8:38am

Deleted User wrote: »

A lot more than what though? A lot more than building a metro underground in Dublin city centre?

Yes.

Donald Trump wrote: »

My point still holds. They shouldn't be granting permission to non-locals. Simple as that.
...

Let's see how you'll feel in maybe 20 years when the Council decide that there can only be one more house in the area and one of your kids wants to build to live beside you and where they grew up and went to school and play and coach in the local GAA club, only for you to be told that that one available slot is going up for raffle in an EU-wide tender and that your kid can just enter it along with a few thousand applicants from builders and speculators spread from France to Latvia. I'd say you'd change your tune fairly lively then :pac:

Either an area is suitable for planning and should be zoned and available to build by anyone with the money to buy it, or it isn't suitable and shouldn't be built upon by anyone. If you live in a city, you are competing with people from France and Latvia and everywhere else if you are looking to buy a house in your own area; the idea that certain people should have a preference when being granted planning in certain areas conferred upon them by virtue of their birth is anathema in a republic.

lomb wrote: »

Largely I think the planning laws are nonsense. There wasn't even a need for planning pre 1963 I don't see too many monstrosities.

You would probably feel different if I built a house uphill from you that did not have have proper drainage, and the run-off from my sceptic tank was going straight into your well.

eviltwin · 03-08-2020 8:45am

No sympathy for them. Anger more than anything that they would put their kids and vulnerable mother in that position.

As for that letter....since when are 17 and 18 yr olds “young children”

whisky_galore · 03-08-2020 8:54am

2018na wrote: »

Just to say I am familiar with the house and would know one of the Murrays but not the chap who built this house. My own view is they have made a monumental error of judgment with out question. But since then they have been through hell and back financially emotionally and I would imagine if they could turn the clock back then they never would dream of proceeding as they did with the build. In a lot of ways I feel they have served there sentence now and have been made an example of. It would be a shocking waste to demolish that building and would benefit no one. They are facing ginormous costs way above the value of the place anyway. It has set a precedent already imo no one in Ireland will attempt this again

Boo hoo.
Knock it.

We already allow chancers off with far too much in this country. There should always be consequences, even with a pre packaged sob story.

03-08-2020 9:26am

Donald Trump wrote: »

I am well aware of arseholes taking cases to the EU.

My point still holds. They shouldn't be granting permission to non-locals. Simple as that.

If I were to become afflicted with some bout of sudden retardation which made me want to go and live in inner city Dublin, the chances of me getting a free house of the council would be very small.......yet if I had lived there my whole life, you can be fairly sure I'd get a nice central location close to both "me ma's" and the dole office.

Local rules are fine when it suits ya and not when it doesn't. That's about the size of it!

Let's see how you'll feel in maybe 20 years when the Council decide that there can only be one more house in the area and one of your kids wants to build to live beside you and where they grew up and went to school and play and coach in the local GAA club, only for you to be told that that one available slot is going up for raffle in an EU-wide tender and that your kid can just enter it along with a few thousand applicants from builders and speculators spread from France to Latvia. I'd say you'd change your tune fairly lively then :pac:

What a load of ****e.

You want to apply locals only? Fine. No jobs and no college places for non dubs.

Silly isn't it?

lomb · 03-08-2020 9:40am

El Tarangu wrote: »

Yes.

Either an area is suitable for planning and should be zoned and available to build by anyone with the money to buy it, or it isn't suitable and shouldn't be built upon by anyone. If you live in a city, you are competing with people from France and Latvia and everywhere else if you are looking to buy a house in your own area; the idea that certain people should have a preference when being granted planning in certain areas conferred upon them by virtue of their birth is anathema in a republic.

You would probably feel different if I built a house uphill from you that did not have have proper drainage, and the run-off from my sceptic tank was going straight into your well.

Probably but that isn't a planning issue but an environmental one. You should still be able to build your house provided my well isn't affected. Remember there was no planning pre 1963 and something like 1950 in the UK. No one died and no monstrosities were built. All that's happened is that house prices have shot vs incomes , builders are paid too much and I think it's largely due to the lack of planning. As trades specialise the price goes up even if nothing changes. My parents bought their house in 1990 for 60k , it's worth 600k today. So what would be 3 or 4 man years work is now about 14 . I don't care either way but Im not too partial to paying Irish taxation as see no value in it and want to move myself and my bus off shore.

StackSteevens · 03-08-2020 10:12am

Deleted User wrote: »

I presume this is the house?

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.6730856,-6.7975464,469m/data=!3m1!1e3

If so, they must not get on well with the neighbours as nobody would ever even notice it, to report it. Someone they're 'friends' with is having a serious laugh at them behind their backs.

Perhaps that's because the lands on which they built their house were sterilised so no law abiding citizen could build a home beside them.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter if their house is located in the middle of a swamp ten miles from their nearest neighbours - they were refused permission to build it and went ahead.

And no amount of whataboutery, slurs on their neighbours or general abuse of the Irish or County Meath Planning Process can change that fact.

This thread is simply asking why the Irish State appears to be unable - or unwilling - to take whatever steps are required to ensure that a Supreme Court directive is carried out. If the Supreme Court's remit extends only as far as the Dublin-Meath border, then something is seriously wrong with this jokeshop country.

El Tarangu · 03-08-2020 10:54am

lomb wrote: »

Probably but that isn't a planning issue but an environmental one.

Environmental aspect is one of the areas considered when granting or declining planning.

No one died and no monstrosities were built.

People used to die in house fires at a much higher rate before modern building regs were introduced.

All that's happened is that house prices have shot vs incomes , builders are paid too much and I think it's largely due to the lack of planning.

I thought you wanted to abolish planning(?)

My parents bought their house in 1990 for 60k , it's worth 600k today. So what would be 3 or 4 man years work is now about 14 .

Not entirely relevant to planning, but what interest rate did you parents pay in 1990?

Lewis_Benson · 03-08-2020 10:56am

The "cute hoors" should be made watch as it's demolished.

bb1234567 · 03-08-2020 11:07am

whisky_galore wrote: »

Boo hoo.
Knock it.

We already allow chancers off with far too much in this country. There should always be consequences, even with a pre packaged sob story.

I agree , no sympathy here . They were adults who proceeded with construction knowing full well that this house was liable to be ordered to be demolished as it was built unlawfully. They took a chance and they lost, they live in a society with rules and tried to be an exception. I just don't think there's any reason to feel bad for them when they willingly put themselves in this position with the county council.

And they havnt been made an example, they are an example showing that if you fight and moan enough eventually you can overrule the laws everybody else works under. It absolutely needs to be demolished

tayto lover · 03-08-2020 11:12am

Have just read part of this thread.
The Murrays previously bought 2 other sites and were refused planning permission. They said in their letter to the Meath Chronicle that other people were later given permission to build on these sites. How did that happen?

bb1234567 · 03-08-2020 11:13am

whisky_galore wrote: »

Boo hoo.
Knock it.

We already allow chancers off with far too much in this country. There should always be consequences, even with a pre packaged sob story.

I agree , no sympathy here . They were adults who proceeded with construction knowing full well that this house was liable to be ordered to be demolished as it was built unlawfully. They took a chance and they lost, they live in a society with rules and tried to be an exception. I just don't think there's any reason to feel bad for them when they willingly put themselves in this position with the county council.

Ash.J.Williams · 03-08-2020 11:17am

lomb wrote: »

Probably but that isn't a planning issue but an environmental one. You should still be able to build your house provided my well isn't affected. Remember there was no planning pre 1963 and something like 1950 in the UK. No one died and no monstrosities were built. All that's happened is that house prices have shot vs incomes , builders are paid too much and I think it's largely due to the lack of planning. As trades specialise the price goes up even if nothing changes. My parents bought their house in 1990 for 60k , it's worth 600k today. So what would be 3 or 4 man years work is now about 14 . I don't care either way but Im not too partial to paying Irish taxation as see no value in it and want to move myself and my bus off shore.

Literal definition of a planning issue

lawrencesummers · 03-08-2020 11:18am

lomb wrote: »

Probably but that isn't a planning issue but an environmental one. You should still be able to build your house provided my well isn't affected. Remember there was no planning pre 1963 and something like 1950 in the UK. No one died and no monstrosities were built. All that's happened is that house prices have shot vs incomes , builders are paid too much and I think it's largely due to the lack of planning. As trades specialise the price goes up even if nothing changes. My parents bought their house in 1990 for 60k , it's worth 600k today. So what would be 3 or 4 man years work is now about 14 . I don't care either way but Im not too partial to paying Irish taxation as see no value in it and want to move myself and my bus off shore.

Your gone past needing planning with the depth of the hole your digging

bb1234567 · 03-08-2020 11:24am

tayto lover wrote: »

Have just read part of this thread.
The Murrays previously bought 2 other sites and were refused planning permission. They said in their letter to the Meath Chronicle that other people were later given permission to build on these sites. How did that happen?

It is odd but may well have been something to do with the building proposed on these sites.

tayto lover · 03-08-2020 11:29am

bb1234567 wrote: »

It is odd but may well have been something to do with the building proposed on these sites.

Or maybe a few quid to the right councillors. RTÉ should investigate again.

jimd2 · 03-08-2020 11:40am

tayto lover wrote: »

Have just read part of this thread.
The Murrays previously bought 2 other sites and were refused planning permission. They said in their letter to the Meath Chronicle that other people were later given permission to build on these sites. How did that happen?

I think that without comparing the plans it is very difficult to conclude anything on this. It is hard to imagine this family being happy with a boil standard house especially considering what they DID build.

Donald Trump · 03-08-2020 11:41am

Vestiapx wrote: »

The person who wants one off housing planning is not the person getting a free house in the city.

Point is that if it is "ok" to have a preference for "locals" in relation to city or town housing in order to "preserve communities", why is it suddenly wrong to have it in relation to rural property?

If I want to live in Dublin city centre, well maybe I walk around and see all the fine locations which are "underused" (from an economic standpoint) where the city council have blocks of flats with people who, without wanting to cause offence, lets just say aren't exactly driving the economy of the country.

Donald Trump · 03-08-2020 11:42am

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

What a load of ****e.

You want to apply locals only? Fine. No jobs and no college places for non dubs.

Silly isn't it?

You can do that if you want. The universities would be fairly empty though........

cnocbui · 03-08-2020 11:45am

Is there a way to get a measure of how much decision making influence a property 'owner' has over what they can do with their property vs the decision making power of the state via planning laws, An Board Nyet and the unelected and answering to no one, An Taisce?

Whats the split; 30/70. 50/50, 80/20?

Donald Trump · 03-08-2020 11:45am

El Tarangu wrote: »

Either an area is suitable for planning and should be zoned and available to build by anyone with the money to buy it, or it isn't suitable and shouldn't be built upon by anyone. If you live in a city, you are competing with people from France and Latvia and everywhere else if you are looking to buy a house in your own area; the idea that certain people should have a preference when being granted planning in certain areas conferred upon them by virtue of their birth is anathema in a republic.

No it's not. Some places can only support a limited amount of development. Therefore access to that needs to be prioritized. Local needs first. Simple as that.

gifted · 03-08-2020 11:47am

This house won't be knocked......no doubt there's some regulation buried in the planning laws that says that after a period of time then planning may be automtically granted and I reckon the Murrays know this. This is Ireland folks.

StackSteevens · 03-08-2020 11:52am

tayto lover wrote: »

Have just read part of this thread.
The Murrays previously bought 2 other sites and were refused planning permission. They said in their letter to the Meath Chronicle that other people were later given permission to build on these sites. How did that happen?

That doesn't really matter.

What matters is that they built a massive, tasteless, vulgar, gin palace on a site after being refused planning permission. And that they are continuing to disobey a Supreme Court instruction to pull it down within 12 months, with impunity.

All the rest of the whataboutery and miscellaneous bum fluff is completely irrelevant.

El Tarangu · 03-08-2020 11:52am

Donald Trump wrote: »

No it's not. Some places can only support a limited amount of development. Therefore access to that needs to be prioritized. Local needs first. Simple as that.

You haven't adequately explained why this is the case.

Donald Trump · 03-08-2020 12:01pm

El Tarangu wrote: »

You haven't adequately explained why this is the case.

History. Workplace. Familial and community connections. It is surprising that you would need this to be explained to you.

El Tarangu · 03-08-2020 12:05pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

History. Workplace. Familial and community connections. It is surprising that you would need this to be explained to you.

Why don't they buy an existing house? If none available in their town, buy in the next town?

I couldn't afford to buy in the part of Dublin where I grew up; there was no special planning exemption granted for me, I just had to buy somewhere else.

Tiger20 · 03-08-2020 12:10pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

No it's not. Some places can only support a limited amount of development. Therefore access to that needs to be prioritized. Local needs first. Simple as that.

You seem to miss the point being made. The poster said either an area is suitable for development or its mot, he never said how much development should be allowed. If it is suitable, then in a republic, to differentiate between WHO can develop it is illegal and against the spirit of equal citizenship of said republic, as all citizens are equal(supposedly). As you can only build something on land that you own, it would be impossible for a "non local" outsider to build something unless they purchased said land, in which case it would be the local owner selling it. Ownership confers control. On a wider point, if you were to take your argument to its logical conclusion, then nobody could venture from the area in which they are from, and no one should live anywhere else other than their original local area.

Donald Trump · 03-08-2020 12:11pm

El Tarangu wrote: »

Why don't they buy an existing house? If none available in their town, buy in the next town?

I couldn't afford to buy in the part of Dublin where I grew up; there was no special planning exemption granted for me, I just had to buy somewhere else.

You can buy a house in the countryside if you want to too. For you, your criteria might be that it needs to be within 30 miles of where you work in Dublin. So you'll find a house to fit that criteria.

Whereas for the local person who wants to live close by so that they can help their parents on their farm, or else keep an eye on their elderly relatives, well there might not be a house coming onto the market in the area within the next 10 years.

If you were brought up in D4, well there will be loads of houses in that area for sale in the next year. That you can't buy one is a product of your earning capacity relative to your peers in D4 - not to the availability of houses there.

L1011 · 03-08-2020 12:12pm

gifted wrote: »

This house won't be knocked......no doubt there's some regulation buried in the planning laws that says that after a period of time then planning may be automtically granted and I reckon the Murrays know this. This is Ireland folks.

There isn't. Enforcement can't start if something is there for 7 years but in this case enforcement has reached the final appeal and nothing will ever regularise it

Donald Trump · 03-08-2020 12:14pm

Tiger20 wrote: »

You seem to miss the point being made. The poster said either an area is suitable for development or its mot, he never said how much development should be allowed. If it is suitable, then in a republic, to differentiate between WHO can develop it is illegal and against the spirit of equal citizenship of said republic, as all citizens are equal(supposedly). As you can only build something on land that you own, it would be impossible for a "non local" outsider to build something unless they purchased said land, in which case it would be the local owner selling it. Ownership confers control. On a wider point, if you were to take your argument to its logical conclusion, then nobody could venture from the area in which they are from, and no one should live anywhere else other than their original local area.

Ah sure look it. We should take all the remaining sites left in Gaeltacht areas and auction them off. The locals who have lived and worked there all their lives in the local shops and businesses can compete against the 20-somethings earning 150k a year working up in Google in Dublin who want to build their own holiday cottage.

cnocbui · 03-08-2020 12:14pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

I am well aware of arseholes taking cases to the EU.

My point still holds. They shouldn't be granting permission to non-locals. Simple as that.

If I were to become afflicted with some bout of sudden retardation which made me want to go and live in inner city Dublin, the chances of me getting a free house of the council would be very small.......yet if I had lived there my whole life, you can be fairly sure I'd get a nice central location close to both "me ma's" and the dole office.

Local rules are fine when it suits ya and not when it doesn't. That's about the size of it!

Let's see how you'll feel in maybe 20 years when the Council decide that there can only be one more house in the area and one of your kids wants to build to live beside you and where they grew up and went to school and play and coach in the local GAA club, only for you to be told that that one available slot is going up for raffle in an EU-wide tender and that your kid can just enter it along with a few thousand applicants from builders and speculators spread from France to Latvia. I'd say you'd change your tune fairly lively then :pac:

You are basically saying it's OK for the government to treat people differently on the basis of cultural traits, so it would be appropriate for the government to designate specific areas of Dublin where Jews had to live, another for Muslims, another for non-Irish born people, etc, etc?

I'm an Australian living in Ireland. I find your mindset and that of a lot of Irish people, totally bizarre. 'No Irish, no Blacks, no Dogs' as a legally enforceable concept you are happy with.

I am just hoping some wealthy German denied planning permission in some rural area, takes this country to the European Court of justice or Human Rights.

An Irish person moving to Australia is not going to be denied planning permission to build a house somewhere on the basis of them not being local.

Medieval thinking is alive and well in this country.

Vestiapx · 03-08-2020 12:16pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Point is that if it is "ok" to have a preference for "locals" in relation to city or town housing in order to "preserve communities", why is it suddenly wrong to have it in relation to rural property?

If I want to live in Dublin city centre, well maybe I walk around and see all the fine locations which are "underused" (from an economic standpoint) where the city council have blocks of flats with people who, without wanting to cause offence, lets just say aren't exactly driving the economy of the country.

It's not ok, people needing housing are a totally separate issue and I agree they should take what's suitable and offered but it's separate to the fact that local only planning is a terrible idea.

Donald Trump · 03-08-2020 12:16pm

cnocbui wrote: »

You are basically saying it's OK for the government to treat people differently on the basis of cultural traits, so it would be appropriate for the government to designate specific areas of Dublin where Jews had to live, another for Muslims, another for non-Irish born people, etc, etc?

I'm an Australian living in Ireland. I find your mindset and that of a lot of Irish people, totally bizarre. 'No Irish, no Blacks, no Dogs' as a legally enforceable concept you are happy with.

I am just hoping some wealthy German denied planning permission in some rural area, takes this country to the European Court of justice or Human Rights.

An Irish person moving to Australia is not going to be denied planning permission to build a house somewhere on the basis of them not being local.

Medieval thinking is alive and well in this country.

Look it's fine. You don't understand and probably never will. That's as far as we can go in terms of a "debate".

I don't know where you are going with this whataboutery for ghettoising Jews and Muslims. That's your own idea. I know that the Aussies do have concentration camps for the immigrants but we don't do that here.

Vestiapx · 03-08-2020 12:17pm

cnocbui wrote: »

You are basically saying it's OK for the government to treat people differently on the basis of cultural traits, so it would be appropriate for the government to designate specific areas of Dublin where Jews had to live, another for Muslims, another for non-Irish born people, etc, etc?

I'm an Australian living in Ireland. I find your mindset and that of a lot of Irish people, totally bizarre. 'No Irish, no Blacks, no Dogs' as a legally enforceable concept you are happy with.

I am just hoping some wealthy German denied planning permission in some rural area, takes this country to the European Court of justice or Human Rights.

An Irish person moving to Australia is not going to be denied planning permission to build a house somewhere on the basis of them not being local.

Medieval thinking is alive and well in this country.

Australia has its fair share of xenophobes as well to be fair.

cnocbui · 03-08-2020 12:25pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Ah sure look it. We should take all the remaining sites left in Gaeltacht areas and auction them off. The locals who have lived and worked there all their lives in the local shops and businesses can compete against the 20-somethings earning 150k a year working up in Google in Dublin who want to build their own holiday cottage.

Yes.

Seth Brundle · 03-08-2020 12:31pm

tayto lover wrote: »

Have just read part of this thread.
The Murrays previously bought 2 other sites and were refused planning permission. They said in their letter to the Meath Chronicle that other people were later given permission to build on these sites. How did that happen?

There could be loads of reasons but given what we know about the Murray's tastes, maybe it was simply too big for the site and the newer proposals were more appropriate.
It's irrelevant to the thread either way.

tayto lover wrote: »

Or maybe a few quid to the right councillors. RTÉ should investigate again.

Aah would people stop with the paranoid nonsense.

cnocbui · 03-08-2020 12:32pm

Vestiapx wrote: »

Australia has its fair share of xenophobes as well to be fair.

Yes it does, but show me where their views are reflected in and enforced by the law.

Donald Trump · 03-08-2020 12:33pm

Vestiapx wrote: »

It's not ok, people needing housing are a totally separate issue and I agree they should take what's suitable and offered but it's separate to the fact that local only planning is a terrible idea.

So what about when Dublin City Council decides to develop, or redevelop an area for locals. Is that ok with you?

If DCC build a social housing complex out the back of the IFSC, you can bet your bollix that it is being built for, and will be populated by, people and families from that area of the north inner city. Why is that ok, whereas it's not ok for people who live in a rural area to have first preference to stay there?

The ones in the north inner city are surrounded by high paying employers. The rural ones are not.

Tiger20 · 03-08-2020 12:39pm

Darc19 wrote: »

Every document relating to every planning application is online for everyone to read.

Decisions are described in detail both those refused and those granted.

But some people just hate that their preconceived notions are blown out by facts.

While it is true that planning applications are public documents available to view, it does not reflect the fair application of the system. I viewed a lot of applications in my area, and in some other local authorities to compare. What I found is that some applications had a report done by the local planner, (which is not supposed to be available until after a decision is made), only to receive unsolicited further information addressing an issue. How the applicant was aware of this report and the issue involved, I don't know. I have seen reports done by the local planners, recommending refusal, then for some reason, a second report done by an executive planner, either concerning or disagreeing with the original assessment, and if disagreeing third report by a senior executive planner simply adding an addendum saying pin this case an exception can be made. I have seen cases where all three reports recommend refusal, only for the authorities to decide to grant. I have seen people with very genuine needs, sometimes for a child with special needs, being refused, and another person nearby with no apparent need getting planning. And while your point about all documents being available to view, sometimes a request to provide documents by the applicant has not been made, and a decision is granted, while others are nearly asked what they had for breakfast and to provide documentary evidence. So while the system is not perfect, no system ever is, but the application of the system is very very arbitrary

cnocbui · 03-08-2020 12:41pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Look it's fine. You don't understand and probably never will. That's as far as we can go in terms of a "debate".

I don't know where you are going with this whataboutery for ghettoising Jews and Muslims. That's your own idea. I know that the Aussies do have concentration camps for the immigrants but we don't do that here.

I'm not surprised you don't get it. There is usually an idea that people should normally be treated equally before the law. What you advocate is the opposite of that.

Do you get the idea that a coin normally has two sides; that there is a flip side to a coin? The flip side of your argument that it's OK for the law/state to tell certain people where they can't live, on the basis of cultural traits, is that it's therefore OK for them to dictate to people, on the basis of cultural traits, where they can live.

Donald Trump · 03-08-2020 12:49pm

cnocbui wrote: »

I'm not surprised you don't get it. There is usually an idea that people should normally be treated equally before the law. What you advocate is the opposite of that.

Do you get the idea that a coin normally has two sides; that there is a flip side to a coin? The flip side of your argument that it's OK for the law/state to tell certain people where they can't live, on the basis of cultural traits, is that it's therefore OK for them to dictate to people, on the basis of cultural traits, where they can live.

If you can't understand that there is a difference between not allowing an individual to get planning permission for a house and ghettoising them based on their religion, then I'm not sure that I can help you.

Your argument probably makes sense to you in your own head. That's fair enough. I can't really help you with that. I'm just happy that you don't get to make the rules.

That house should be bulldozed on those people. End of story.

You could propose the state buying it off them at agricultural value for the land plus a nominal price for the building and using it to house older people or something like that. But that could starts to get messy and opens up other complications.

Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

Comments