Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

ronivek · 05-08-2020 10:30am

Out of interest I contacted Meath Co. Co. and they confirmed they're in the middle of enforcement proceedings against the Murrays for breach of the Supreme Court's Judgement.

whisky_galore · 05-08-2020 10:43am

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Beautiful house. Our draconian planning laws are just far too restrictive and you have to take the piss to get anything nice built.

We should massively de-regulate planning. If you want to live in a one off you should be allowed to once you realise that you're not allowed lobby the council for footpaths, street lighting, schools, school busses etc...

that house is an absolute dream. Would love to prop up a 4000 sq ft house with a detached 3-4 bay garage and office, Kildare co co will never allow me though.

Beautiful?
Stevie Wonder must have been the architect.

Bullocks · 05-08-2020 11:18am

rn wrote: »

@paul71 you've a serious chip on your shoulder based on anecdotal evidence. Esb networks connection charge covers connection costs in most incidents. Same for Irish water. Both easily made a profit connecting mine. Health in a rural setting would have same travel costs even if everyone was in a village, because of the distance between villages and randomised nature of locations of people needing care.

I paid 3k to esb networks to bring a cable 200m with 2 poles. About 1/2 day for a crew and materials. A new 28ft esb pole is around 100 euro. I paid Irish water 1.5k to dig a hole and install a connection, immediately beside my neighbours. 2 hours work and a pipe T plus plastic ground man hole.

Are you sure you can get a 28' ESB pole for €100? I seriously doubt it

05-08-2020 1:48pm

ronivek wrote: »

Out of interest I contacted Meath Co. Co. and they confirmed they're in the middle of enforcement proceedings against the Murrays for breach of the Supreme Court's Judgement.

naturally enough but people here wanted the mob with pitchforks

runawaybishop · 05-08-2020 1:49pm

Bullocks wrote: »

Are you sure you can get a 28' ESB pole for €100? I seriously doubt it

you can, used for fencing a lot.

Mellor · 05-08-2020 1:54pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

you can, used for fencing a lot.

A 28' fence

:D:D

CrankyHaus · 05-08-2020 1:55pm

Mellor wrote: »

A 28' fence?

For serious breeders who give their cattle plenty of Angel Dust.

runawaybishop · 05-08-2020 2:00pm

Mellor wrote: »

A 28' fence :D:D

Why do you think you never see Giraffes roaming about?:pac:

Farmers cut them and use them for strainers.

StackSteevens · 05-08-2020 2:46pm

ronivek wrote: »

Out of interest I contacted Meath Co. Co. and they confirmed they're in the middle of enforcement proceedings against the Murrays for breach of the Supreme Court's Judgement.

Thanks for that.

Good to know that, a mere 26 months after the deadline for demolition specified by the Supreme Court passed, they're half way through writing an angry letter to the Murrays!

bladespin · 05-08-2020 2:52pm

StackSteevens wrote: »

Thanks for that.

Good to know that, a mere 26 months after the deadline for demolition specified by the Supreme Court passed, they're half way through writing an angry letter to the Murrays!

Surely it's now up to the courts etc to ensure the judgement is carried out and not down to the council?

Just wondering.

Mellor · 05-08-2020 2:56pm

StackSteevens wrote: »

Thanks for that.

Good to know that, a mere 26 months after the deadline for demolition specified by the Supreme Court passed, they're half way through writing an angry letter to the Murrays!

Just out of curiosity.
What would you have expected council to do?

listermint · 05-08-2020 2:59pm

Mellor wrote: »

Just out of curiosity.
What would you have expected council to do?

no idea, commence proceedings to carry out the judgement ? or who is that down to.

Mellor · 05-08-2020 3:22pm

listermint wrote: »

no idea, commence proceedings to carry out the judgement ? or who is that down to.

The court ordered the Murrays to demolish their house. At this point it’s on them.

As much as the house us forfeit, the council stop can’t just trespass on the property with a bulldozer and level it.

listermint · 05-08-2020 3:23pm

Mellor wrote: »

The court ordered the Murrays to demolish their house. At this point it’s on them.

As much as the house us forfeit, the council stop can’t just trespass on the property with a bulldozer and level it.

So whats the next steps then ? enforcement surely is and how can they not 'trespass' ?

Donald Trump · 05-08-2020 3:29pm

Mellor wrote: »

The court ordered the Murrays to demolish their house. At this point it’s on them.

As much as the house us forfeit, the council stop can’t just trespass on the property with a bulldozer and level it.

Of course they could - although perhaps they might have to get some court order to do it but that would be a formality.

But why should they? They just need to take the owners back to court for contempt of court for not doing it. They can then be held until they purge that contempt.

Mellor · 05-08-2020 3:44pm

listermint wrote: »

So whats the next steps then ? enforcement surely is and how can they not 'trespass' ?

The council have no power or right to enforce the judgement.

The next steps would be to obtain that power.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Of course they could - although perhaps they might have to get some court order to do it but that would be a formality.

But why should they? They just need to take the owners back to court for contempt of court for not doing it. They can then be held until they purge that contempt.

But they don’t have this court order, so they in fact couldn’t do anything to the house.

If may be a formality to get an order, but it’s also going to take time, And another hearing. I imagine that’s the point they are at now.

Donald Trump · 05-08-2020 4:52pm

Mellor wrote: »

The council have no power or right to enforce the judgement.

The next steps would be to obtain that power.

But they don’t have this court order, so they in fact couldn’t do anything to the house.

If may be a formality to get an order, but it’s also going to take time, And another hearing. I imagine that’s the point they are at now.

The council should not be bulldozing it unless they plan on sending the owners the bill afterwards. The owners were told to do it, so if they don't it should be a simple visit to the court to have them declared in contempt.

StackSteevens · 05-08-2020 5:21pm

Mellor wrote: »

Just out of curiosity.
What would you have expected council to do?

My expectation would have been that, very soon after the Supreme Court's deadline had expired, Meath County Council would have applied to the High Court to have Murray jailed for contempt of court.

Edit - here's a link to a story about another genius who disregarded a Court Order. The woman spent over 100 days in jail before it dawned on her that ignoring a Court directive isn't the wisest course of action. If Meath Co Co had gone to court two years ago, then by now either Murray would be living in a mobile home or he'd still be in prison.

chooseusername · 05-08-2020 7:33pm

Arn't the " New Land League" and yer man Beadle or whatever he's called
involved yet?

paul71 · 05-08-2020 7:35pm

rn wrote: »

@paul71 you've a serious chip on your shoulder based on anecdotal evidence. Esb networks connection charge covers connection costs in most incidents. Same for Irish water. Both easily made a profit connecting mine. Health in a rural setting would have same travel costs even if everyone was in a village, because of the distance between villages and randomised nature of locations of people needing care.

I paid 3k to esb networks to bring a cable 200m with 2 poles. About 1/2 day for a crew and materials. A new 28ft esb pole is around 100 euro. I paid Irish water 1.5k to dig a hole and install a connection, immediately beside my neighbours. 2 hours work and a pipe T plus plastic ground man hole.

The Village of Sumerhill has 150 to 250 households, the 8km radius around the village probably has in excess of 400 households. The village has it electricity supply serviced by a few dozen kms of cabling. The surrounding rural area is serviced by several thousand kilometers. The poles and cables are serviced 3 to 4 times a year. The cost of supply to village compared to the rural areas is therefore a factor of the lenght of the network divided by the number of customers. Maths for 9 year I would suggest. This is repeated in every village in Meath and the same formula applies to all services.

I dont have a chip on my shoulder. I am presenting simple plain fact. Those facts do not suit the agenda of people planners/politicians/owners who decided to blight our economy and landscape with an unsustainable settlement pattern.

Why does not suit them, because they realise that they are being subsidised by the rest of society.

listermint · 05-08-2020 7:38pm

paul71 wrote: »

The Village of Sumerhill has 150 to 250 households, the 8km radius around the village probably has in excess of 400 households. The village has it electricity supply serviced by a few dozen kms of cabling. The surrounding rural area is serviced by several thousand kilometers. The poles and cables are serviced 3 to 4 times a year. The cost of supply to village compared to the rural areas is therefore a factor of the lenght of the network divided by the number of customers. Maths for 9 year I would suggest. This is repeated in every village in Meath and the same formula applies to all services.

I dont have a chip on my shoulder. I am presenting simple plain fact. Those facts do not suit the agenda of people planners/politicians/owners who decided to blight our economy and landscape with an unsustainable settlement pattern.

Why does not suit them, because they realise that they are being subsidised by the rest of society.

Our entire country is subsidised by everyone else. Your roads. Your healthcare your education. Should we start letting single people off paying for other people's kids in schools...

Sit down horse. You'll give yourself a headache

paul71 · 05-08-2020 7:47pm

listermint wrote: »

Our entire country is subsidised by everyone else. Your roads. Your healthcare your education. Should we start letting single people off paying for other people's kids in schools...

Sit down horse. You'll give yourself a headache

Not to the extent that people in towns villages and cities subsidise rural 1 off builds. No thank I won't sit down, I dont have head up my arse and my cornflakes where not pissed in. Personal abuse is simply an admission that people are in denial of very obvious facts.

Spanish Eyes · 05-08-2020 7:52pm

That house will stay.

Make someone homeless? not a chance. And it will be forgotten soon enough. Amazed that the neighbours are ok with it, but maybe they aren't who knows.

MCC need to grow a pair, and maybe instead of knocking it down, use it for asylum seekers, and let the owners find somewhere else to live.

The audacity of this is just jaw breaking well to me anyway.

Dr Turk Turkelton · 05-08-2020 7:54pm

paul71 wrote: »

The Village of Sumerhill has 150 to 250 households, the 8km radius around the village probably has in excess of 400 households. The village has it electricity supply serviced by a few dozen kms of cabling. The surrounding rural area is serviced by several thousand kilometers. The poles and cables are serviced 3 to 4 times a year. The cost of supply to village compared to the rural areas is therefore a factor of the lenght of the network divided by the number of customers. Maths for 9 year I would suggest. This is repeated in every village in Meath and the same formula applies to all services.

I dont have a chip on my shoulder. I am presenting simple plain fact. Those facts do not suit the agenda of people planners/politicians/owners who decided to blight our economy and landscape with an unsustainable settlement pattern.

Why does not suit them, because they realise that they are being subsidised by the rest of society.

So what you are saying is that without all these one off houses outside of villages and towns there would be a huge number of Esb workers unemployed?
So to create more jobs we need to build more one off houses. This politics thing seems handy enough.

A VOTE FOR THE DR IS A VOTE FOR JOBS.

Anyone that doesn't vote for me is obviously against jobs.

StackSteevens · 05-08-2020 7:59pm

paul71 wrote: »

Not to the extent that people in towns villages and cities subsidise rural 1 off builds. No thank I won't sit down, I dont have head up my arse and my cornflakes where not pissed in. Personal abuse is simply an admission that people are in denial of very obvious facts.

Here are some more "obvious facts" for you:

My one off house in the countryside is bordered by dairy farmers on each side. They both need a power supply for their homes, milking machines and refrigeration. The three of us use the same electricity line with me being in the middle of the line, which was there before I arrived. Hence, my one-off actually makes the cost of maintaining that run of power cable less, as it's now being funded by three customers rather than two. And the same economies of scale apply to the community water scheme which I share with my neighbours.

So, by building my one off I've reduced the average cost per house for those utilities.

It's true that there are now three septic tanks instead of two. However that's pretty trivial when one thinks about how much slurry is produced - and spread on the local fields - by the 180 dairy cattle that I live among!

Many one-offs will be in the exact same situation as I am. So your sweeping generalisations don't always apply.

Tiger20 · 05-08-2020 8:04pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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

This country was founded by anarchists, people who had an issue with the way the country was being run, and rising against it.While I am not advocating that in this issue, the point I would make is that if laws are to be applied, apply them fairly. There are 2 sides to that coin. The locals only rule has been declared to be illegal, the Irish authorities have known this for the last 7/8 years and done nothing about it. This means that every decision made by the authorities in the last 7 years refusing planning to an applicant on the grounds that the applicant was not local, was, in effect, an illegal decision. The authorities had no grounds to make that decision. I very much doubt they will revisit every decision made retrospectively to amend their error, but I very much hope that an applicant who was refused under those grounds takes a case, as I believe they would have one.However, there has been no issue made about the authorities of this country acting illegally, while there is an issue with citizens breaking the law. Personally, this is something that I have an issue with, as I want to live in a fair society, and the planning laws are just one area where they are not applied fairly. As a nation, we have seen this in other areas, be it the recent penalty points issue, white collar crime, the application of justice. Seeking a fairer society is not anarchy, IMO it is the opposite

Donald Trump · 05-08-2020 8:29pm

Tiger20 wrote: »

This country was founded by anarchists, people who had an issue with the way the country was being run, and rising against it.While I am not advocating that in this issue, the point I would make is that if laws are to be applied, apply them fairly. There are 2 sides to that coin. The locals only rule has been declared to be illegal, the Irish authorities have known this for the last 7/8 years and done nothing about it. This means that every decision made by the authorities in the last 7 years refusing planning to an applicant on the grounds that the applicant was not local, was, in effect, an illegal decision. The authorities had no grounds to make that decision. I very much doubt they will revisit every decision made retrospectively to amend their error, but I very much hope that an applicant who was refused under those grounds takes a case, as I believe they would have one.However, there has been no issue made about the authorities of this country acting illegally, while there is an issue with citizens breaking the law. Personally, this is something that I have an issue with, as I want to live in a fair society, and the planning laws are just one area where they are not applied fairly. As a nation, we have seen this in other areas, be it the recent penalty points issue, white collar crime, the application of justice. Seeking a fairer society is not anarchy, IMO it is the opposite

You are not refused because you are not a local. You are refused because there is a policy against one-off housing.

The fella who got permission did not get permission because he was a local. He got permission by presenting a case why he needed an exemption.

Not all "locals" can get planning permission. You seem to think there is some rule that you get it if you are a local, else you don't. You are wrong

Tiger20 · 05-08-2020 9:02pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

You are not refused because you are not a local. You are refused because there is a policy against one-off housing.

The fella who got permission did not get permission because he was a local. He got permission by presenting a case why he needed an exemption.

Not all "locals" can get planning permission. You seem to think there is some rule that you get it if you are a local, else you don't. You are wrong

First of all, I was refused because I wasn't considered local. At least, that is what it says in the document I received from the council laying out, amongst others, one of the reasons for my refusal. Now, this is very subjective, as what is considered to be a local is open to interpretation. As most rural development plans are divided into differentv zones, like A1,A2,A3, the you could find yourself living a few metres from one zone, and not being considered applicable to you, while another person could be from the other end of that zone, maybe 10kms away, and he is permitted. If what you are saying is correct, then what are those large concrete objects with windows and doors that I drive by every day that were built by people who already had a house, or people not from the area, or on sites where all previous local residents were refused. And why did the ECJ find that the locals only rule is illegal. Just put yourself in the shoes of someone who wrapped all their hopes and dreams, not to mind the expense, in trying to secure a family home for themselves, one that they will pay for themselves, and imagine how you would feel after you were refused and you see someone else, for whatever reason, a few years later being granted(on the same site). You would feel very angry , frustrated, pissed off. It is this arbitrary application of the system that gets to people. It is not rules, it is the improper application of rules. I think the case referred to in this OP is an extreme example, or reaction, to that frustration, and while not agreeing with it, I can understand it. As I am typing, theres a tv programme talking about the harsh conditions of the Treaty of Versailles on the Germans, and how it showed the seed of WW2. Off topic, I know, but what I take from it is that if there are things done by those in authority on others that are not seen to be fair, it leads to resentment that can have consequences, such as the anarchy referred to

Spanish Eyes · 05-08-2020 9:16pm

I have a huge long garden with a lane at the back. Still cannot get permission to build a habitable space with separate entrance. It would be like a mews house. NOPE. OK in Terenure and Rathgar though.

Not too worried at all, but looking at this, I could become pis sed off, but they must have friends in high places. Only thing I can think of now.

Donald Trump · 05-08-2020 9:56pm

Tiger20 wrote: »

First of all, I was refused because I wasn't considered local. At least, that is what it says in the document I received from the council laying out, amongst others, one of the reasons for my refusal. Now, this is very subjective, as what is considered to be a local is open to interpretation. As most rural development plans are divided into differentv zones, like A1,A2,A3, the you could find yourself living a few metres from one zone, and not being considered applicable to you, while another person could be from the other end of that zone, maybe 10kms away, and he is permitted. If what you are saying is correct, then what are those large concrete objects with windows and doors that I drive by every day that were built by people who already had a house, or people not from the area, or on sites where all previous local residents were refused. And why did the ECJ find that the locals only rule is illegal. Just put yourself in the shoes of someone who wrapped all their hopes and dreams, not to mind the expense, in trying to secure a family home for themselves, one that they will pay for themselves, and imagine how you would feel after you were refused and you see someone else, for whatever reason, a few years later being granted(on the same site). You would feel very angry , frustrated, pissed off. It is this arbitrary application of the system that gets to people. It is not rules, it is the improper application of rules. I think the case referred to in this OP is an extreme example, or reaction, to that frustration, and while not agreeing with it, I can understand it. As I am typing, theres a tv programme talking about the harsh conditions of the Treaty of Versailles on the Germans, and how it showed the seed of WW2. Off topic, I know, but what I take from it is that if there are things done by those in authority on others that are not seen to be fair, it leads to resentment that can have consequences, such as the anarchy referred to

That's an awful block of text. I'm not being smart but paragraphs would help your cause.

You were not refused because you were not a local. You were refused because you could not show a "local need".

Let me ask you a simple question. Was there any actual real reason why you *needed* to have the house there as opposed to say a site 3 miles away? (Aside from maybe owning a plot there or wanting to put it there or it being your dream view etc).

Not all "locals" can get permission. Where I live, one child per family is more or less entitled to build (assuming suitable site). A second one *can* build if they can show that they work more or less full time on a family farm (I assume the same would be true of a rural business). After that, you are out of luck.

Rural communities need to be preserved. Pay will always be less in rural areas than big cities. Someone who is at the bottom of the ladder in terms of their peer salaries in the city might not be able to afford in the area where they grew up. But they might be able to afford to live and commute within 50 miles of Dublin. But what use are they to a rural community? Blow ins who are bitter that they couldn't compete where they were born and still live their lives back in the city. Keep the available slots for the locals who are contributing.

Darc19 · 05-08-2020 10:08pm

As above, the refusal is "local need"

Three applications were refused where I live and all three were born and bred on the immediate land.

But none work in the immediate area or farm in the area so did not get planning.

Houses were normal sized and similar design to others.

listermint · 05-08-2020 10:40pm

paul71 wrote: »

Not to the extent that people in towns villages and cities subsidise rural 1 off builds. No thank I won't sit down, I dont have head up my arse and my cornflakes where not pissed in. Personal abuse is simply an admission that people are in denial of very obvious facts.

Personal abuse..... ?

That's a bit well... Where do I start. When you tell someone they have their head up their arse I think you'll find you lost the battle. Absolute whining...

Tiger20 · 06-08-2020 12:58am

[quote="Donald Trump;114230382"

"You were not refused because you were not a local. You were refused because you could not show a "local need".

Sorry, but you are incorrect. I was subsequently approved for planning. This is because, through researching other applications made after my first application, I discovered a number of applications which were granted planning, despite being in areas that had a stricter zoning criteria. By highlighting this, I argued that their interpretation of my first application was incorrect.

The details of my successful application were identical to my first, in that nothing had changed in my circumstances, house design etc, so the "need" remained unchanged. In granting me planning the council were acknowledging that they were incorrect,(they didn't actually say this, but their decision was acknowledgement in itself).

That is the problem I have, the lazy, inconsistent, different criteria applied by those who should be above this sort of thing. One thing I will acknowledgement is that I notice there seems to be a marked improvement in the analysis and decision making recently, but how consistent this is, I cannot say.

(Hope you like the paragraphs!)
.

cnocbui · 06-08-2020 1:29am

paul71 wrote: »

The Village of Sumerhill...
The poles and cables are serviced 3 to 4 times a year. ...
I dont have a chip on my shoulder. I am presenting simple plain fact. Those facts do not suit the agenda of people planners/politicians/owners who decided to blight our economy and landscape with an unsustainable settlement pattern.

Why does not suit them, because they realise that they are being subsidised by the rest of society.

Since you are claiming simple plain fact, provide some proof of that. As it's complete nonsense, I won't be holding my breath.

The vast majority of one-off houses simply connect to existing infrastructure, and pay for such connection. The infrastructure exists because of farms. My house, and others, do not cause the need or provisioning of services, it's the farms that do that. The infrastructure existed and was in place before there were one-off houses. If the one off houses had never been built the cost of the supporting infrastructure would still be there because the farms would still exist to require it.

Mellor · 06-08-2020 2:16am

Donald Trump wrote: »

The council should not be bulldozing it unless they plan on sending the owners the bill afterwards. The owners were told to do it, so if they don't it should be a simple visit to the court to have them declared in contempt.

If the council bulldozed it and sent them a bill, they'd be legally within their rights to laugh at the bill and say thanks for sorting that.
I imagine on some level the Murrarys are hoping it will be paid for.

I'm not saying the correct legal recourse doesn't exist. I'm saying it's not an overnight process.

StackSteevens wrote: »

My expectation would have been that, very soon after the Supreme Court's deadline had expired, Meath County Council would have applied to the High Court to have Murray jailed for contempt of court.

Edit - here's a link to a story about another genius who disregarded a Court Order. The woman spent over 100 days in jail before it dawned on her that ignoring a Court directive isn't the wisest course of action. If Meath Co Co had gone to court two years ago, then by now either Murray would be living in a mobile home or he'd still be in prison.

Notice the dates. The judgement was in 2011. She was jailed in 2017.
If Murray continues to refuse he will go to jail. But it's not an overnight thing, and there are other lines worth pursuing first.

rn · 06-08-2020 6:47am

paul71 wrote: »

The Village of Sumerhill has 150 to 250 households, the 8km radius around the village probably has in excess of 400 households. The village has it electricity supply serviced by a few dozen kms of cabling. The surrounding rural area is serviced by several thousand kilometers. The poles and cables are serviced 3 to 4 times a year. The cost of supply to village compared to the rural areas is therefore a factor of the lenght of the network divided by the number of customers. Maths for 9 year I would suggest. This is repeated in every village in Meath and the same formula applies to all services.

I dont have a chip on my shoulder. I am presenting simple plain fact. Those facts do not suit the agenda of people planners/politicians/owners who decided to blight our economy and landscape with an unsustainable settlement pattern.

Why does not suit them, because they realise that they are being subsidised by the rest of society.

The problem is your "facts" don't stack up. What's this servicing you outline. It's not engines we're talking about. I've plenty of esb network infrastructure on my land. Have only seen them do periodic pole inspections and only see big crews when it's a repair job. Which is very, very rare and not 4 times per year. Again I pay a rural rate for my supply. That's higher than my urban rate. That would cover inspection and repair every 20 years.

You don't really subsidise the rural dweller. We pay for everything ourselves, generally through higher service costs.

Ribbon development is proving unsustainable alright from a ground water point of view and a water point of view. But that's another story.

JimmyVik · 06-08-2020 9:00am

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I have a huge long garden with a lane at the back. Still cannot get permission to build a habitable space with separate entrance. It would be like a mews house. NOPE. OK in Terenure and Rathgar though.

Not too worried at all, but looking at this, I could become pis sed off, but they must have friends in high places. Only thing I can think of now.

A guy I work with put one of these (well something like it) up with the door facing his back patio doors about 6 feet away.

https://www.gardenrooms.ie/gallery/#

He then built a walkway, insulated and all joined from the house to the cabin.
From the pictures he showed me its just like a short 6 foot wide hall from the living room into the garden room. Looks lovely. And he has a new patio door to the garden coming off this "hall".
He did that because it cost him about €8K for tha garden room and €2K to get the "hall built", and he got no planning permission.

I have a fascination with these kinf o building projects. I love hearing about them. Great threads on boards where guys have documented their entire build.

Donald Trump · 06-08-2020 9:20am

Tiger20 wrote: »

Donald Trump wrote: »

"You were not refused because you were not a local. You were refused because you could not show a "local need".

Sorry, but you are incorrect. I was subsequently approved for planning. This is because, through researching other applications made after my first application, I discovered a number of applications which were granted planning, despite being in areas that had a stricter zoning criteria. By highlighting this, I argued that their interpretation of my first application was incorrect.

The details of my successful application were identical to my first, in that nothing had changed in my circumstances, house design etc, so the "need" remained unchanged. In granting me planning the council were acknowledging that they were incorrect,(they didn't actually say this, but their decision was acknowledgement in itself).

That is the problem I have, the lazy, inconsistent, different criteria applied by those who should be above this sort of thing. One thing I will acknowledgement is that I notice there seems to be a marked improvement in the analysis and decision making recently, but how consistent this is, I cannot say.

(Hope you like the paragraphs!)
.

That does not make logical sense.

You say that you were were refused since you were not a local. That was the only thing. Yet you were able to argue against that. So either you were able to prove that you were "a local" or your council did away with this requirement (which would have made headline news to be fair as it would have opened the floodgates)

At least for the last few years, personal details in applications are not available online as a result of GPDR. So you can't go in a see a person's proof of personal things such as their connections to the locality.

AndrewJRenko · 06-08-2020 12:23pm

rn wrote: »

You don't really subsidise the rural dweller. We pay for everything ourselves, generally through higher service costs.

Ribbon development is proving unsustainable alright from a ground water point of view and a water point of view. But that's another story.

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

Donald Trump · 06-08-2020 12:30pm

paul71 wrote: »

The poles and cables are serviced 3 to 4 times a year.

The only pole that I'd want to be servicing a few times a year is the young wan that works behind to counter in the shop down the road.

"Local needs" sez you

cnocbui · 06-08-2020 1:35pm

JimmyVik wrote: »

A guy I work with put one of these (well something like it) up with the door facing his back patio doors about 6 feet away.

https://www.gardenrooms.ie/gallery/#

He then built a walkway, insulated and all joined from the house to the cabin.
From the pictures he showed me its just like a short 6 foot wide hall from the living room into the garden room. Looks lovely. And he has a new patio door to the garden coming off this "hall".
He did that because it cost him about €8K for tha garden room and €2K to get the "hall built", and he got no planning permission.

I have a fascination with these kinf o building projects. I love hearing about them. Great threads on boards where guys have documented their entire build.

I built something along those lines 12 years ago and used Sikkens wood preservative on it and it's not holding up too well against the sodden onslaught of Irish weather.

rn · 06-08-2020 1:40pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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

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

Muahahaha · 06-08-2020 1:41pm

rn wrote: »

You don't really subsidise the rural dweller. We pay for everything ourselves, generally through higher service costs.

Thats just simply not the case as we now know from the distribution of local property taxes. Counties like Leitrim get huge subsidies from central government to pay for maintaining infrastructure. Then as the houses arent worth much the LPT collected locally is tiny, many houses would be exempt altogether.

Im not arguing against the system, we are a republic and thats the way things are run. But if we had a federal system with every county for itself then theres counties in Ireland that would just sink overnight without the subsidies they get from urban taxpayers.

Mellor · 06-08-2020 1:43pm

JimmyVik wrote: »

He then built a walkway, insulated and all joined from the house to the cabin.
From the pictures he showed me its just like a short 6 foot wide hall from the living room into the garden room. Looks lovely. And he has a new patio door to the garden coming off this "hall".
He did that because it cost him about €8K for tha garden room and €2K to get the "hall built", and he got no planning permission.

Depending on sizes, he may not have needed planning.

cnocbui wrote: »

I built something along those lines 12 years ago and used Sikkens wood preservative on it and it's not holding up too well against the sodden onslaught of Irish weather.

How many times in 12 years have you retreated it?

cnocbui · 06-08-2020 2:51pm

Mellor wrote: »

Depending on sizes, he may not have needed planning.

How many times in 12 years have you retreated it?

At least 6-8 but more as it needs spotting annually.

sydthebeat · 06-08-2020 2:57pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

Im not arguing against the system, we are a republic and thats the way things are run. But if we had a federal system with every county for itself then theres counties in Ireland that would just sink overnight without the subsidies they get from urban taxpayers.

and many urban tax payers would go hungry.....

Muahahaha · 06-08-2020 3:25pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

and many urban tax payers would go hungry.....

not sure how that would happen. Just making the point that infrastructure in rural areas is subsidised by the taxes paid in urban areas, as it is in all countries really. There seems to be a myth on these Boards and elsewhere that rural Ireland pays its own way in terms of infrastructure, it simply doesnt and the stats bear this out.

Again Im not arguing against the system, just pointing out realities to posters who say rural Ireland pays for everything itself. It doesn't here in Ireland and it doesn't in other countries either.

skooterblue2 · 06-08-2020 3:43pm

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I remember reading about this case in the Meath Chronicle and scouring the article looking for what their case or excuse would be. They didn't even try to come up with a plausible reason, just "We made a little mistake" and "the council want to demolish our house and make us homeless"

If you are looking to win any court case dont show up with Free Legal Aid.

Bass Reeves · 06-08-2020 10:34pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

not sure how that would happen. Just making the point that infrastructure in rural areas is subsidised by the taxes paid in urban areas, as it is in all countries really. There seems to be a myth on these Boards and elsewhere that rural Ireland pays its own way in terms of infrastructure, it simply doesnt and the stats bear this out.

Again Im not arguing against the system, just pointing out realities to posters who say rural Ireland pays for everything itself. It doesn't here in Ireland and it doesn't in other countries either.

This is a miss conception. Most business are based out of Dublin, there main offices and especially HR sections are based there. The taxes for people that are employed working for them down the country are paid in Dublin. As there offices are Dublin based there rates etc are all paid into Dublin local authorities. As well the vast majority of Public servants are are based in Dublin and again even though they are providing services don the country there taxes are allocated to Dublin.

So the taxes paid by the postman, eir employee, teachers, social welfare employees in leitrim may all be treated as Dublin based employee's as well as staff managing there HR side.

dubrov · 07-08-2020 7:27am

Bass Reeves wrote:

This is a miss conception. Most business are based out of Dublin, there main offices and especially HR sections are based there. The taxes for people that are employed working for them down the country are paid in Dublin. As there offices are Dublin based there rates etc are all paid into Dublin local authorities. As well the vast majority of Public servants are are based in Dublin and again even though they are providing services don the country there taxes are allocated to Dublin.

Bass Reeves wrote:

So the taxes paid by the postman, eir employee, teachers, social welfare employees in leitrim may all be treated as Dublin based employee's as well as staff managing there HR side.

I think you are confusing factories with businesses.

Employees working in Dublin are part of the business.

Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

Comments