Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

Options
1…1314161819…33

Comments

  • Options
    #452
    Dempo1
    Registered Users Posts: 26,934 ✭✭✭✭Dempo1


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    They have been flouting the law so long the young kids are 20, 19 and 14.

    Fair enough, just showing a little compassion.

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

    Is maith an scáthán súil charad.




  • Options
    #453
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,076 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Dempo1 wrote: »
    Fair enough, just showing a little compassion.

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

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

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


  • Options
    #454
    whisky_galore
    Registered Users Posts: 15,827 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    They have been flouting the law so long the young kids are 20, 19 and 14.

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

    Knock the ugly thing and be done with this farce.


  • Options
    #455
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,556 ✭✭✭dubrov


    Dempo1 wrote:
    I wonder what if any mortgage implications will occur now, I assume there's at a minimum, part mortgage on the property, The supreme Court costs must run into €100k alone, a very costly error of judgement.

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


  • Options
    #456
    imme
    Registered Users Posts: 3,200 ✭✭✭imme


    Dempo1 wrote: »
    Fair enough, just showing a little compassion.

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

    They knew what they were doing.
    Not an error of judgement imo.

    It was a massive two fingers up to society to build a big fook off house that could be mistaken for a prison.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #457
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,709 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Dempo1 wrote: »
    I see an update this morning in the indo. Agreement reached, couple will live in house for two more years with an agreement to vacate it and demolition thereafter. Hard to know what to think, I agree the build of the property wrong albeit seems a little harsh after all these years to demolish it. There are young children to consider also. I guess it's a harsh, harsh lesson but an end to this saga is nearing.

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

    tbh Ive alot of empathy for individuals and always try to consider circumstance and where they are coming from, but that empathy always comes with the realisation that there are individuals out there that will quite literally take the piss, There is narcissism and complete self interest. I think this is the latter.

    We have laws for the betterment of all. And i do believe these guys were trying to flout them with abandon. Not stupid people at all.


  • Options
    #458
    check_six
    Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭check_six


    This whole case is bizarre to my mind.
    What is their plan here? Ask if they can build a house on agricultural land, get refused, and then build a bigger house anyway?
    Ok, so now you have spent a lot of money building a mansion which is effectively worth zero euros.
    Apart from being able to live there for a few years before the bulldozers roll, what's the scam I'm missing here? They are trying to force retention which is never going to come at this point. They can't possibly think they can swizz a cash sale somehow to get away scot free? I'm also wondering how they are calculating their property tax. It's worth nothing so is the bill €0? What are they trying to do longterm?


  • Options
    #459
    monseiur
    Registered Users Posts: 1,215 ✭✭✭monseiur


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    Hard to believe they got quoted 300k to demolish it. I've always wanted to have a go of one of those wrecking balls and Id say Im not the only one. They could sell raffle tickets for who gets the first strike in and tickets for the spectators too.

    Just reading through this tread and had a good LOL moment on reading the above - well done Muahahaha and one would never think from your username that you had a sense of humor !! (smilies not working)
    .........So the Murrays have two years to sell raffle tickets, say €50 each for the wrecking ball and €5 for spectators. Should cover their costs and have enough to re build in the next field and start all over again..... I'm buying one of each to ensure that I'm an active or passive participant in the demo. job.

    Just wondering.... assuming the house is insured (while granny was conveniently away at the hairdressers) it burnt to the ground - would the insurance pay up considering the house should not be built in the first place.
    Accidents do happen.......................!


  • Options
    #460
    bladespin
    Registered Users Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭bladespin


    monseiur wrote: »
    Just reading through this tread and had a good LOL moment on reading the above - well done Muahahaha and one would never think from your username that you had a sense of humor !! (smilies not working)
    .........So the Murrays have two years to sell raffle tickets, say €50 each for the wrecking ball and €5 for spectators. Should cover their costs and have enough to re build in the next field and start all over again..... I'm buying one of each to ensure that I'm an active or passive participant in the demo. job.

    Just wondering.... assuming the house is insured (while granny was conveniently away at the hairdressers) it burnt to the ground - would the insurance pay up considering the house should not be built in the first place.
    Accidents do happen.......................!

    Pretty sure you can't insure something that doesn't technically exist and I'd bet that was considered.


  • Options
    #461
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,488 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


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

    Houses popping up all over the place is killing local towns and villages.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #462
    StackSteevens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭StackSteevens


    bladespin wrote: »
    Pretty sure you can't insure something that doesn't technically exist and I'd bet that was considered.

    I suspect that you can insure it - but when the time comes to make a claim, you'll have a very hard job getting paid on an asset that, as you say, doesn't legally exist!


  • Options
    #463
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users Posts: 19,615 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    imme wrote: »
    They knew what they were doing.
    Not an error of judgement imo.

    It was a massive two fingers up to society to build a big fook off house that could be mistaken for a prison.

    Isnt that the best part of this story, they applied for permission for a 240sqm house and were refused. So instead of taking on board the councils suggessted amendments so that they could get planning permission yer man just turns around and says feck this Im going to build a 500sqm house with no permission. I've no sympathy whatsoever, this chap is literally telling everyone to shove it up their hole.

    Also think the 2 years they got to move out of it is generous, a year would have been more than adequate for them to pack up and rent a house locally. No doubt they will be back crying before the courts in 2 years time again.


  • Options
    #464
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,905 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    When (if) they eventually move out MCC should not demolish it, but use it for a massive Traveller family. Plenty of room for the horse boss.


  • Options
    #465
    alias no.9
    Registered Users Posts: 6,266 ✭✭✭alias no.9


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    Isnt that the best part of this story, they applied for permission for a 240sqm house and were refused. So instead of taking on board the councils suggessted amendments so that they could get planning permission yer man just turns around and says feck this Im going to build a 500sqm house with no permission. I've no sympathy whatsoever, this chap is literally telling everyone to shove it up their hole.

    Also think the 2 years they got to move out of it is generous, a year would have been more than adequate for them to pack up and rent a house locally. No doubt they will be back crying before the courts in 2 years time again.

    AFAIK, before these chancers bought the land, it was subject to a planning sterilisation order, I expect as a condition of the the granting of planning permission for another house on a larger parcel of land that this land once formed a part of. They knew before buying the land that a sterilisation order existed and no doubt the land was priced accordingly. No planning would ever have been possible, they knew that, that's why they never appealed to ABP or reapplied. No doubt they were hoping to hit the magic 7 years without enforcement to be able to keep it, apparently its not visible from the road.


  • Options
    #466
    StackSteevens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭StackSteevens


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »

    Houses popping up all over the place is killing local towns and villages.

    Some towns and villages deserve to die, as they no longer have a reason to exist.

    Drimoleague for example started its life as a village in the 1850's when the West Cork Railway located a station there. Trains haven't run on that line since March 1961, but the decaying station and it's surrounding village remains. It should be abolished!


  • Options
    #467
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,556 ✭✭✭dubrov


    Muahahaha wrote:
    Also think the 2 years they got to move out of it is generous, a year would have been more than adequate for them to pack up and rent a house locally. No doubt they will be back crying before the courts in 2 years time again.


    2 years? They've had since 2007 to move out.

    I'm not sure why a judge thinks they will comply with the latest court order when they have defied all the previous ones


  • Options
    #468
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,488 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    StackSteevens wrote: »
    Some towns and villages deserve to die, as they no longer have a reason to exist.

    Put that on your next election leaflet and see what support you get.


  • Options
    #469
    StackSteevens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭StackSteevens


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Put that on your next election leaflet and see what support you get.

    Not every poster on Boards.ie believes that pandering to populism always ensures that the best options are taken in the field of public policy. :)


  • Options
    #470
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,805 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Houses popping up all over the place is killing local towns and villages.

    What nonsense. People don't move from large cities or towns to small villages; in general, the trend would be the opposite, but they do move to one off houses in the vicinity of villages and become part of the catchment area for local shops and businesses. My local village just recently had an Aldi open in it, which would indicate a commercial assessment that a demographic decline is not underway.

    Connemara, with it's famous/infamous planning war against holiday homes and foreigners is dying and emptying apace. The place will be empty in another 80 years and the whole region can then be turned into one giant national park.

    That war on holiday homes to keep housing cheap for locals is certainly delivering great dividends there, as hoped. /s


  • Options
    #471
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users Posts: 19,615 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    dubrov wrote: »
    2 years? They've had since 2007 to move out.

    I'm not sure why a judge thinks they will comply with the latest court order when they have defied all the previous ones

    Oh I know, our justice system moves unbeliebabably slow when it comes to civil cases like this, it can take up to five years just to get a hearing in the High Court so lads like this chap know it can be dragged out.

    One thing I wonder though for this case and similar ones is what is the interaction between ESB and planning permission? You would think that it is not possible to get a new ESB connection without proving first that your new house complies with planning law. Clearly that is not the case because people are building houses without permission and getting the ESB connected. Our justice system could avoid a lot of this hassle if the ESB just turned around and refused to connect any house with no planning permission. Sure some shams would go and get a diesel generator but it would put off many of these cowboys from building in the first place if they knew the ESB are not going to play ball with illegal developments.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #472
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Could we organise a boards roadtrip to go see this property before or during demolition?
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #473
    poker--addict
    Registered Users Posts: 1,712 ✭✭✭poker--addict


    https://instagram.com/no10_burrow_road_house?igshid=va1fzy2jtnpt

    Allegedly another property in bother in Sutton, with Fingal CC getting busy.

    😎



  • Options
    #474
    chooseusername
    Registered Users Posts: 3,609 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    poker--addict wrote: »
    https://instagram.com/no10_burrow_road_house?igshid=va1fzy2jtnpt

    Allegedly another property in bother in Sutton, with Fingal CC getting busy.
    I think that's number 4.
    Planning permission for garage in 2017.
    Edit;
    Appears to be number 10 alright.


  • Options
    #475
    chewed
    Registered Users Posts: 3,407 ✭✭✭chewed


    poker--addict wrote: »
    https://instagram.com/no10_burrow_road_house?igshid=va1fzy2jtnpt

    Allegedly another property in bother in Sutton, with Fingal CC getting busy.

    Looks like they're building the Central Bank in Sutton!


  • Options
    #476
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,805 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Think of the good they are doing for the local economy.


  • Options
    #477
    kev1.3s
    Registered Users Posts: 4,358 ✭✭✭kev1.3s


    I'm no fan of the Irish planning laws but the absolute arrogance of the two families mentioned in this thread is astounding.


  • Options
    #478
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,805 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    kev1.3s wrote: »
    I'm no fan of the Irish planning laws but the absolute arrogance of the two families mentioned in this thread is astounding.

    Bad laws lead to bad consequences.


  • Options
    #479
    duffman13
    Registered Users Posts: 8,946 ✭✭✭duffman13


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Bad laws lead to bad consequences.

    That Sutton house is an absolute piss take, imagine you were living next store to that, its pure arrogance to even try and proceed with that kind of thing.


  • Options
    #480
    kev1.3s
    Registered Users Posts: 4,358 ✭✭✭kev1.3s


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Bad laws lead to bad consequences.

    True but you don't really see people on modest salaries taking the pisś like that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #481
    Thargor
    Registered Users Posts: 17,881 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Any more coverage of the Sutton House besides that Insta page?


Advertisement