Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

Tiger20 · 03-08-2020 12:49pm

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.

You cant take a site from someone who owns it, that argument has not being made.

Donald Trump · 03-08-2020 12:53pm

Tiger20 wrote: »

You cant take a site from someone who owns it, that argument has not being made.

Why would you need to take anything from anyone?

Give unconditional transferable planning permission (in the sense that no local needs apply etc.) to every possible future site in a Gaeltacht area and let the owners sell them off whenever they want to.

Kaybaykwah · 03-08-2020 12:57pm

Tiger20 wrote: »

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

The "nearly asked what they had for breakfast" part is interesting. Is that near conjecture on your part or actually made up? Either way, your report of the application publications is not fine grained enough to determine what points are lacking in the applicants' submissions.

I think that anyone wanting to build on a piece of.land should get the proper authorization and stick to it. I have a hard time with people who willingly throw a wrench into a very straightforward process, and actually abuse it by a country mile, and then complain of unfair treatment. Come on.

A house is too valuable a family asset to have to forfeit down the road.

Donald Trump · 03-08-2020 1:09pm

There are planning laws and rules. Certain areas are designated as residential and certain areas are designated as commercial and some are designated for industry and some as rural.

They don't want one-off housing in rural areas. That is a valid viewpoint and then that is the standard. To deviate away from that necessitates an exception - for which you must demonstrate why you need that exception. If you can't demonstrate that, then tough shit.

It's a fairly simple concept.

For example, everybody would agree that a good rule would be that a person cannot get multiple permissions for one-off houses. Why would you have a need for multiple houses? But there are exceptions. I know of a fella who had a house and then later on had a kid who was confined to a wheelchair and so they got permission to build a new house which was suitable for wheelchair. That's completely fair and justified. But there is probably still some wanker out there who would take a case to the EU Supreme Court that their human rights were infringed because Jimmy got to build two houses and they only got to build one.

cnocbui · 03-08-2020 1:11pm

Widdensushi wrote: »

Rubbish, we need rules or everyone can build what they want, I am not necessarily against that but if you have rules then the people who ignore them have to take down their properties or there will be a free for all. It's an injustice to everyone who applies for planning permission that this property is still standing.

Yes, much better we enshrine in the constitution a right to own property and make sure we then have laws to effectively rescind those same rights.

Want nice large areas of glass window? No, you should have small glass windows with glazing bars to spoil the view even further, because that makes your house - sorry, our house - look more like a f'ing cottage in 2020, sorry, 1720. Oh, and make sure a third of the front of the house you are building for us is of natural stone, and it had better be a stone I, your Oberleutnant of planning approve of. (pssst! me uncle has a local quarry - nod, nod; wink, wink)

The system is so utterly sh1t the government has had to step in especially to allow solar panels to stop the planning departments preventing them.

Of course the goverrnment should have stopped pretending there isn't a problem and should have reformed the planning laws that allow the planners that much power, but oh no, this is Ireland, just slap a plaster on it.

El Tarangu · 03-08-2020 1:12pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

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.

This sounds like they need to zone more land for residential in the nearest town or village, available for everyone to buy, and not build a load of one-off houses resulting in a patchwork development that urban dwellers will be subsidising until the end of time.

Donald Trump wrote: »

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

No.

Donald Trump · 03-08-2020 1:29pm

El Tarangu wrote: »

No.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that. If someone's roots are deeply embedded in a particular location then my opinion is that if that is something of value to them, then it adds more to society as a whole to allow them to keep that as compared to giving it to a randomer who can't have the same appreciation of or connection to that history. That's the same whether it is Cabra or Sherrif St. or Leitrim.

ronivek · 03-08-2020 1:40pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that. If someone's roots are deeply embedded in a particular location then my opinion is that if that is something of value to them, then it adds more to society as a whole to allow them to keep that as compared to giving it to a randomer who can't have the same appreciation of or connection to that history. That's the same whether it is Cabra or Sherrif St. or Leitrim.

What exactly are you arguing for here?

That the Government should be purchasing random sites in the middle of the countryside and building bungalows for local farmers?

Or that locals should be allowed to purchase sites and property for less than their actual value according to the free market just by virtue of the fact they're locals?

Tiger20 · 03-08-2020 1:49pm

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

The "nearly asked what they had for breakfast" part is interesting. Is that near conjecture on your part or actually made up? Either way, your report of the application publications is not fine grained enough to determine what points are lacking in the applicants' submissions.

I think that anyone wanting to build on a piece of.land should get the proper authorization and stick to it. I have a hard time with people who willingly throw a wrench into a very straightforward process, and actually abuse it by a country mile, and then complain of unfair treatment. Come on.

A house is too valuable a family asset to have to forfeit down the road.

Not conjecture fact, , and while they didn't ask what they had for breakfast, the point is that some applicants are put through the wringer, which I have no problem with, while others are not asked. What I want is the same standard applied equally
If you read a few planning applications, there are numerous examples, not urban legend. It is a fact, not conjecture, that some people get planning where many others were refused on the same site. Unequal treatment leads to no respect. It is you who is engaging in conjecture by saying people willingly throw spanners in the system and abuse it.

Tiger20 · 03-08-2020 1:52pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Why would you need to take anything from anyone?

Give unconditional transferable planning permission (in the sense that no local needs apply etc.) to every possible future site in a Gaeltacht area and let the owners sell them off whenever they want to.

The why part only you can answer, as it is you who suggested it in your previous post where you said "take all the sites"

Biscuitus · 03-08-2020 1:55pm

Wether the house gets knocked or not the long term affect is nobody in that family would get future planning permission in the area.

Donald Trump · 03-08-2020 2:04pm

Tiger20 wrote: »

The why part only you can answer, as it is you who suggested it in your previous post where you said "take all the sites"

Well I suppose it comes to how you interpreted that phrase "take the sites". You interpreted to mean "seize" ownership of - which was not the intention.

To say that the planning authorities could take those sites and grant permission/zoning to them doesn't have to mean they seize them.

Donald Trump · 03-08-2020 2:07pm

ronivek wrote: »

What exactly are you arguing for here?

That the Government should be purchasing random sites in the middle of the countryside and building bungalows for local farmers?

ronivek wrote: »

Or that locals should be allowed to purchase sites and property for less than their actual value according to the free market just by virtue of the fact they're locals?

I'm not saying either of those things. If you got to either of those conclusions it is because you wanted to get there regardless of what I wrote.

03-08-2020 2:14pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

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

No, you cant because it would be unfair and illegal. It would also cause unemployment issues both immediately and in the future.

I would have hoped any with an ounce of sense would see that.

Donald Trump · 03-08-2020 2:25pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No, you cant because it would be unfair and illegal. It would also cause unemployment issues both immediately and in the future.

I would have hoped any with an ounce of sense would see that.

Ok. I'll rephrase

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

It was an off-the-cuff remark because the analogy was nonsensical, as you kinda said yourself in that post.

Do we want to preserve things as a society or do we want to allow individuals to shit on things because it suits them individually at this point in time to and they feel that they have a "right" to something.

If they can build 10 houses in a Gaeltacht area, then I think that it would be reasonable that they restrict that to locals or at least people who are fluent in Irish. But sure that's probably racist and technically against some EU human rights charter. I think that if people were allowed to build houses with abandon on the Aran islands then it would ruin them. But the solution to that is not to have no houses. You need people to live there and work there and to keep it alive. So have a few houses for the locals. Don't build a few houses and put the rights to buy them up for lottery between a locals and a families in Dublin or Paris or Warsaw who'd like to have a house there.

El Tarangu · 03-08-2020 2:27pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that. If someone's roots are deeply embedded in a particular location then my opinion is that if that is something of value to them, then it adds more to society as a whole to allow them to keep that as compared to giving it to a randomer who can't have the same appreciation of or connection to that history. That's the same whether it is Cabra or Sherrif St. or Leitrim.

If someone from Sheriff St studies hard and earns a lot of money, they should be able to buy an apartment in D4 or wherever they like; they shouldn't be told: "sorry, all these apartments are reserved for the children of established D4 residents - tough luck".

Donald Trump · 03-08-2020 2:28pm

El Tarangu wrote: »

If someone from Sheriff St studies hard and earns a lot of money, they should be able to buy an apartment in D4 or wherever they like; they shouldn't be told: "sorry, all these apartments are reserved for the children of established D4 residents - tough luck".

That's right.

But sure nobody is suggesting that.

Neither is anyone suggesting that that person from Sherrif St should live on the moon in case you want to put that into an analogy

If you want to buy a house in the countryside, you can do it. If you want an exception to the development plans which do not want to permit new one-off houses, you have to demonstrate why you need that exception. Saying "Wah wah I just want it because Mammy said I'm special" isn't good enough.

Kaybaykwah · 03-08-2020 2:32pm

Tiger20 wrote: »

Not conjecture fact, , and while they didn't ask what they had for breakfast, the point is that some applicants are put through the wringer, which I have no problem with, while others are not asked. What I want is the same standard applied equally
If you read a few planning applications, there are numerous examples, not urban legend. It is a fact, not conjecture, that some people get planning where many others were refused on the same site. Unequal treatment leads to no respect. It is you who is engaging in conjecture by saying people willingly throw spanners in the system and abuse it.

No, I think that there is a process, and when things need ironing out, you call for a derogation and see how that goes with planning commissions, committees, whatnot. Every project has a set of rules regarding site usage and these need to be followed or contested accordingly, depending on the issue at hand.

In the Murrays' case, they went above and beyond the proper way of going about building. The fact that they built this house at twice the size that had been refused in the first place, and disregarded the need for approval by zoning authorities.

El Tarangu · 03-08-2020 2:39pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

That's right.

If you want an exception to the development plans which do not want to permit new one-off houses, you have to demonstrate why you need that exception. Saying "Wah wah I just want it because Mammy said I'm special" isn't good enough.

This is literally 'local needs', in a nutshell.

Donald Trump · 03-08-2020 2:45pm

El Tarangu wrote: »

This is literally 'local needs', in a nutshell.

Possibly to an ignorant blow-in

pigtown · 03-08-2020 2:56pm

Tiger20 wrote: »

Pay Belgian taxes? Happily, if I got Belgian public services. As I pointed out, we get nothing for our property tax that we did not get before. I would have happily paid the water charge, because it is the one thing that you actually got to see what you paid for. Turn on your tap, theres your water. My point re planning laws, and all laws in this country, is that they are totally unfair and not applied evenly. There are many examples of this, for instance the Central Bank fmhad permission to build 16 storeys, but "someone" built 17, did they have to knock a floor? No. So, if you want a law applying to the people in this OP, then apply it to everyone

What's this about the central bank? The new one on the docks?

03-08-2020 3:04pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Ok. I'll rephrase

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

It was an off-the-cuff remark because the analogy was nonsensical, as you kinda said yourself in that post.

Do we want to preserve things as a society or do we want to allow individuals to shit on things because it suits them individually at this point in time to and they feel that they have a "right" to something.

If they can build 10 houses in a Gaeltacht area, then I think that it would be reasonable that they restrict that to locals or at least people who are fluent in Irish. But sure that's probably racist and technically against some EU human rights charter. I think that if people were allowed to build houses with abandon on the Aran islands then it would ruin them. But the solution to that is not to have no houses. You need people to live there and work there and to keep it alive. So have a few houses for the locals. Don't build a few houses and put the rights to buy them up for lottery between a locals and a families in Dublin or Paris or Warsaw who'd like to have a house there.

a local is just an immigrants child.

What you suggest is, correctly, illegal. You are restricting where I can live based on my Irish language abilities now.

My spanish isnt great either. Guess I may as well divorce the Spanish wife

Im baffled how that isnt obvious to you as you are the one making the call for special treatment. of locals

Donald Trump · 03-08-2020 3:13pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Im baffled how that isnt obvious to you as you are the one making the call for special treatment. of locals

I don't know what gives you the idea that something isn't "obvious".

I am explicitly calling for it and supporting it.

The authorities do not want one-off houses as a rule. But they need to be able to have exceptions - the same as with practically every rule and guideline in the world. There are exceptions for genuine local needs. And rightly so. There has to be or else rural communities would die.

Do you know that not all "locals" qualify for local needs? It is not a blanket guarantee to a certain subsection of people. There are a subset of people, even children of those who have lived for generations in rural areas, who can satisfy those criteria.

coolbeans · 03-08-2020 3:24pm

El Tarangu wrote: »

If someone from Sheriff St studies hard and earns a lot of money, they should be able to buy an apartment in D4 or wherever they like; they shouldn't be told: "sorry, all these apartments are reserved for the children of established D4 residents - tough luck".

I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand the issue here. If someone from Sheriff Street wants to buy a house or a flat in D4 then they can. They can also buy a house in rural Ireland if they like.

coolbeans · 03-08-2020 3:24pm

El Tarangu wrote: »

If someone from Sheriff St studies hard and earns a lot of money, they should be able to buy an apartment in D4 or wherever they like; they shouldn't be told: "sorry, all these apartments are reserved for the children of established D4 residents - tough luck".

I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand the issue here. If someone from Sheriff Street wants to buy a house or a flat in D4 then they can. They can also buy a house in rural Ireland if they like. The reason there are restrictions on building in the countryside is because without them we'd have a free for all where whole roads would be taken over endless ribbon development which ruins the landscape and is incredibly expensive to provide services to. One way to handle this situation is to give preference to local needs thereby acknowledging the requirement for some new builds while simultaneously putting some sort of a brake on new dwellings. It's a crude way of doing things but with so many people a generation or less away from the land it's almost impossible to stop one offs completely.
As for the need for the planning system dysfunctional as it may be the entire countryside would be lit up without it.

El Tarangu · 03-08-2020 3:31pm

coolbeans wrote: »

I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand the issue here. If someone from Sheriff Street wants to buy a house or a flat in D4 then they can. They can also buy a house in rural Ireland if they like.

Allow me to rephrase: a person from Sheriff st should have as much right as someone from Athboy to buy a plot of land outside Athboy and build a house. Either the land in Athboy is zoned and available to purchase to be built upon by people from Athboy or Tralee or Seville, or should be left as it is. There should be no hierarchy of citizens in a republic.

handlemaster · 03-08-2020 3:36pm

So is the house in the OP still been lived in ?

Tiger20 · 03-08-2020 3:51pm

pigtown wrote: »

What's this about the central bank? The new one on the docks?

Apologies. I referenced the fact that in the late 70s/80s the Central Bank in Dame St constructed an extra floor and were in breach of planning. I thought they had remedied it by getting retention, but as other poster pointed out, they had to remove the unpermitted portion, at cost to the owners, the Central Bank, which is 100% owned by the state(the citizens, so it cost the taxpayers in reality). What I would like to know is if there was any sanction on the individual/s involved, which I very much doubt.

cbreeze · 03-08-2020 4:15pm

I am afraid the tasteless monstrosity will probably remain the longer this drags on. It looks like a scanger's notion of posh!

Donald Trump · 03-08-2020 4:19pm

El Tarangu wrote: »

Allow me to rephrase: a person from Sheriff st should have as much right as someone from Athboy to buy a plot of land outside Athboy and build a house. Either the land in Athboy is zoned and available to purchase to be built upon by people from Athboy or Tralee or Seville, or should be left as it is. There should be no hierarchy of citizens in a republic.

You have the same right of opportunity.

You can of course buy the plot of land in Athboy, and you can of course apply for planning permission and outline why you are deserving of an exception. There will be guidelines that the planners have to follow, and you will rightfully be assessed using those same guidelines as everyone else.

The same as how you have a right to apply for a graduate course in Trinity next year should you so wish. Your application will be judged according to the same criteria as everyone else.

If you don't get either, then that's tough shit. You had your chances for both.

fallen01angel · 03-08-2020 4:41pm

They really did bring it on themselves.....the planning was rejected more than once. If they had at least made some teeny tiny effort to be discreet and built something that resembled what they'd originally sought I might have some bit of sympathy for them.

But my biggest issue is the vast discrepancy with Planners.....I spent a lot of money and time trying to get planning on family land, jumping through all kinds of hoops to no avail, eventually gave up and moved away...... was bitterly disappointed but what more could I do.
You can imagine my reaction when a family of Travellers built this monstrosity of a house on land close by with zero planning permission......that house (the gaudiest house you could imagine....think engraved windows, fountains,lions on pillars etc) which broke every rural planning law ever conceived still stands to this day.......simply because of who they were......if you make rules......they should be applied across the board to everyone equally.

Lewis_Benson · 03-08-2020 9:02pm

handlemaster wrote: »

So is the house in the OP still been lived in ?

Yes, the house is still being lived in.

kravmaga · 03-08-2020 9:25pm

Does anyone have a photo of what the house looks like

Darc19 · 03-08-2020 9:40pm

Google it.

Spanish Eyes · 03-08-2020 9:51pm

Have to laugh at the precious posts about building a log cabin in the back garden for family members to live in.

Doesn't meet the regulations
Fire hazard
Not legal
Don't do it
Planning Required. and so on.

But build your Southfork in Co. Meath and who gives a hoot. Joke or what?

beveragelady · 03-08-2020 10:40pm

kravmaga wrote: »

Does anyone have a photo of what the house looks like

https://goo.gl/maps/QLYsQcz7gRWjq3b19
There's no streetview for the road the house is on.
The map on geohive is better and more up to date but I can't find a way to link to a location.

04-08-2020 12:10am

kravmaga wrote: »

Does anyone have a photo of what the house looks like

It's on the op article

04-08-2020 12:17am

I'm surprised, but I just seen that it has an Eircode: C15 Y8P0

I didn't think it'd get one, considering it's an illegal build..?

Seth Brundle wrote: »

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

Deleted User wrote: »

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

El Tarangu wrote: »

Yes.

Just out of curiousity, Tarangu, do you expect anyone to take any of your posts seriously, when you post nonsense like above?

rn · 04-08-2020 5:10am

An post will register an eircode once post is being delivered. They never look for PP.

Banks and finance do and are very strict on that. This house has been built and paid for entirely out of owners funds. That is amazing.

It is mad that enforcement has to be paid for by the builder. IMHO it's not a waste of rates payers cash to enforce the order by the council.

paul71 · 04-08-2020 5:16am

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm surprised, but I just seen that it has an Eircode: C15 Y8P0

I didn't think it'd get one, considering it's an illegal build..?

Just out of curiousity, Tarangu, do you expect anyone to take any of your posts seriously, when you post nonsense like above?

Why is it nonsense. The cost of providing services to one off builds in rural areas costs the state billions every year with no return.

Bass Reeves · 04-08-2020 8:15am

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm surprised, but I just seen that it has an Eircode: C15 Y8P0

I didn't think it'd get one, considering it's an illegal build..?

This always amazes me,

Posters aligning services like bin collection, eircode, electricity supply with Planning. Even posters on about builders, engineers and architect's and question why they did not check.

Planning is the remit of Co Councils and An Bord Pleanala and that is it. The only other people that checks planning is a solicitor when you go to buy a house or a bank when you apply for a mortgage. Other entities that would have an interest in you having planning that supply you with services are limited. Technically even if you were getting a water connection from the Council it would not be in that deparment's remit to check if you had planning.

rn · 04-08-2020 9:17am

bb1234567 wrote: »

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

paul71 wrote: »

Why is it nonsense. The cost of providing services to one off builds in rural areas costs the state billions every year with no return.

What's nonsense is your comment on no return. The only state services provided are electricity, post and roads. If you are lucky you also get water, waste and Internet. Only the roads are provided as a public asset. The builder/resident pays substantial money to connect power and water. An post and telcos are commercial. Pay for use. For every service, except post there's an urban and rural rate, the rural rate being substantially higher in my experience of having a one off house and an urban house within 5km of each other. In my experience the waste disposal on is several times higher than urban.

On water, many rural houses were paying for water either on group schemes or private well treatment. Thanks to urban objectors to Irish water, the group scheme people were winners alright. IMHO it's urban dwellers who expect general taxation to pay for their services. Rural dwellers are well used to paying for services.

Other points on provision of health care and education don't stack up because generally they are in a regional town village setting that requires healthcare and education whether you centralise rural population or allow ribbon development.

There's two points against rural ribbon development that are concerning alright. First is sewage treatment and ground water pollution. It's a real issue. I think jury is still out on current systems for me. And the other aspect is abandoned housing. We need planning to reduce new houses designs in favour or renovating or rebuilding existing houses, cottages and sites.

04-08-2020 9:26am

Tiger20 wrote: »

That's my point, which you seem to miss. We need rules, but ones that are applied to everyone. Why should these people have to take down their property if the Central Bank did not have to abide by the laws and remove a floor that they had no permission for? To me, that is the injustice

So, because we didn't solve a murder, anarchy?

CrankyHaus · 04-08-2020 10:03am

Bass Reeves wrote: »

This always amazes me,

Posters aligning services like bin collection, eircode, electricity supply with Planning. Even posters on about builders, engineers and architect's and question why they did not check.

Planning is the remit of Co Councils and An Bord Pleanala and that is it. The only other people that checks planning is a solicitor when you go to buy a house or a bank when you apply for a mortgage. Other entities that would have an interest in you having planning that supply you with services are limited. Technically even if you were getting a water connection from the Council it would not be in that deparment's remit to check if you had planning.

The only amazing thing in all of that is the laziness involved. "Not in my remit" should come far behind "the public interest" within public bodies. However in practice the former is imperative and the latter treated like an inbred half-brother locked in the basement.

cnocbui · 04-08-2020 10:31am

Oh, yeah, this house thing is liable to start an insurrection if not crushed with Roman efficiency and brutality. Board the owners up in it and burn it to the ground, that will show em. No talk anywhere of whether there might be fault with the planning officials who kept refusing their attempts to abide by this precious law.

Mellor · 04-08-2020 10:36am

cnocbui wrote: »

Oh, yeah, this house thing is liable to start an insurrection if not crushed with Roman efficiency and brutality. Board the owners up in it and burn it to the ground, that will show em. No talk anywhere of whether there might be fault with the planning officials who kept refusing their attempts to abide by this precious law.

They made one attempt to get planning on this site. They didn't appeal the refusal.

Based on the poor design of the house they built, I wouldn't have any confidence in the quality of the design they applied for.
They had 3 retention applications, 2 were incomplete. So getting the paperwork right isn't a strength.

On what basis where the planners at fault? They are by no means infallible, but sounds like you are making assumptions.

cnocbui · 04-08-2020 11:02am

paul71 wrote: »

Why is it nonsense. The cost of providing services to one off builds in rural areas costs the state billions every year with no return.

Oh really. I cordially invite you to provide some evidence of that. I live in a rural one off. I paid for a well, so the state paid not one cent towards water. There were power lines and phone lines running past the door, following the road that already existed. I paid connection charges to have the two services connected and then have paid standing charges on both for 18 years.

Where is the cost to the state? Is it for the first rate rubbish collection service that is provided by commercial companies, or for the provision of mobile phone services? Surely you aren't thinking it's for the provision of schools and hospitals - which are in villages, towns and cities anyway.

Ah, you must be thinking that without one off houses there wouldn't be a need for a road, or power and phone lines? There are multiple farms along the roads in question - they are why these amenities exist and are maintained. Now you could argue servicing farms and propping up the agricultural industry does cost the taxpayer billions, but then there's all those ancillary jobs that industry creates in towns and the taxes all those workers pay, not to mention the tourism industry needing those roads to exist in order for the billions a year to flow into the country annually and the hundreds of thousands of jobs created - or do you think tourists come to this country to see St Stephens green and then turn around and go home?

TheBoyConor · 04-08-2020 11:06am

Originally Posted by 2018na View Post
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

No no no. No precedent has been set yet.
They need to be forced to knock it, or since they refuse the council should be compelled to knock it and charge the bill back to the murrays.
That is a precedent that will go down and will be taken heed of.

Doing as you suggest, the only precedent that would set is that you can give the finger to planning law, build whatever you want, let the council take you all the way to the fooking Supreme Court, and then just wave your arse at the demolition order....and get away with it!!
Then the next brazen necked cowboy will be on building another McMansion sans planning and moving in the elderly grannies, safe in the knowledge that if he is brazen enough to tough out the court and media shítstorm, neither the Council or or the Courts actually have the gumption to go out and physically enforce any of their emty orders or vacuous threats.

Some precedent that would be.

TheBoyConor · 04-08-2020 11:14am

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.

Ah come here now, you're talking through your hole!

beveragelady · 04-08-2020 11:14am

cnocbui wrote: »

Oh really. I cordially invite you to provide some evidence of that. I live in a rural one off. I paid for a well, so the state paid not one cent towards water. There were power lines and phone lines running past the door, following the road that already existed. I paid connection charges to have the two services connected and then have paid standing charges on both for 18 years.

Where is the cost to the state? Is it for the first rate rubbish collection service that is provided by commercial companies, or for the provision of mobile phone services? Surely you aren't thinking it's for the provision of schools and hospitals - which are in villages, towns and cities anyway.

Ah, you must be thinking that without one off houses there wouldn't be a need for a road, or power and phone lines? There are multiple farms along the roads in question - they are why these amenities exist and are maintained.

As well as the fact that we pay for their water as well as our own there's also the fact that rural dwellers don't benefit from things like streetsweeping or streetlights that exist in suburban residential areas, even though a portion of our tax goes towards them. So while one-off dwelling is not ideal the imbalance is not as clear as it might appear.

(I live in a one-off that's about 200 years old in the arse end of nowhere. Bloody love it.)

Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

Comments