Couple Ordered to Demolish House

syklops

Why should you have to get planning permission if you want to put in a window? The idea seems crazy to me.

That aside, obviously he did wrong by not getting permission for the house, but I still stand by what i said, there is definitely more to this case.

kc66

So does anyone know if it was knocked? Doubt it.

athtrasna

kc66 wrote: »

So does anyone know if it was knocked? Doubt it.

Article was from June 2010 and they got a 24 month stay on demolition so wouldn't have to be down yet.

JupiterKid

It is right that the High Court upholds the law with respect to planning. Too often in this country, good land use planning has not been practiced because of corruption, greed and downright incompetence.

Harsh on that couple but fair.

ronan45

It wont be knocked! Ill buy a pint for anyone who can put up a picture of a bull dozer going through that there house :rolleyes:


http://www.limerickblogger.ie/forum/viewtopic.php?id=5437

smallerthanyou

Jesus the size of that thing, have they 16 kids to house in it?. How did they expect retention. Perfectly fair. The owners bad decisions put them in the position they are in now.

TEAR IT DOWN, TEAR IT DOWN!

Situation

Searching around on boards.ie for similar information and this thread popped up.
Anyone have updates on this house.

murphaph

I find the planning system less than transparent (was refused 3 times for something commercial in nature in an urban area and eventually gave up after ABP also refused) BUT I didn't go ahead and build what was refused even though I strongly disagreed with them. This guy has given 2 fingers not just to the council or whatever but to ALL law abiding citizens. No sympathy and I wouldn't have sympathy even if it wasn't a McMansion.

Oops, didn't realise I was replying to a 2 year old thread.

hfallada

Most ultra luxury homes in Dublin are about 4,000 square feet. There house is mini-mansion. Its great to see planning authorities enforcing planning laws for once. I know a family who have built their house 2 foot taller than they should to get a decent attic room, converted their garage into an extra bedroom and have the house bigger than it should have been. DCC inspected it and gave them a fine for a having a satellite dish in the wrong place

Gatling

It looks like its still there if Google maps is up to date ,

If I'm looking at the right place

Eric Cartman

D3PO wrote: »

dont see how its harsh.

they gave the planning authority the finger and got two fingers back.
good enough for them

the harsh thing is that there is no way to get planning for such a dream house like this .

local needs and ever stricter planning regs mean that having a 6000sq ft dream house thats not a horrible dormer bungalow is now impossible in Leinster. We really need to relax on the planning and realise that endless rolling hills and empty fields do not constitute 'asthetic value' to an area.

jiminho

The frustrating thing is, is that these large homes are probably more aesthetically pleasing than the standard 1200 sq.ft bungalow. I can understand the concept of "blending" into the environment. Obviously a Spanish, clay tiled mansion will look out of place but these bog standard, concrete infused, non-imaginative houses that we see all around the country are just plain boring and in my opinion make our countryside look worse. A stat that has always got to me was the fact Ireland has the second lowest tree coverage as a percentage of total land area than any other country in Europe. Why don't we spend some time on landscaping our plots? Also, I always thought it looked ridiculous having a 3 bed dormer bungalow nestled in a massive 10 acre plot.

Eric Cartman

jiminho wrote: »

The frustrating thing is, is that these large homes are probably more aesthetically pleasing than the standard 1200 sq.ft bungalow. I can understand the concept of "blending" into the environment. Obviously a Spanish, clay tiled mansion will look out of place but these bog standard, concrete infused, non-imaginative houses that we see all around the country are just plain boring and in my opinion make our countryside look worse. A stat that has always got to me was the fact Ireland has the second lowest tree coverage as a percentage of total land area than any other country in Europe. Why don't we spend some time on landscaping our plots? Also, I always thought it looked ridiculous having a 3 bed dormer bungalow nestled in a massive 10 acre plot.

As have I, we have protection orders on old country houses and castles of the 4000+ sq ft variety because theyre so aesthetically integral to the area , yet the very idea of building something new of a similar size is apparently blasphemy in the planning world

Cuddlesworth

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the harsh thing is that there is no way to get planning for such a dream house like this .

local needs and ever stricter planning regs mean that having a 6000sq ft dream house thats not a horrible dormer bungalow is now impossible in Leinster. We really need to relax on the planning and realise that endless rolling hills and empty fields do not constitute 'asthetic value' to an area.

1 off housing in the middle of nowhere costs the state a fortune. I'm glad that planning is at last taking a stand on it.

Eric Cartman

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

1 off housing in the middle of nowhere costs the state a fortune. I'm glad that planning is at last taking a stand on it.

it doesnt have to be in the middle of nowhere , along an existing road just outside village boundries adds no cost to the state and suits people far more than generic estates with curtain twitching neighbors, noisy kids and limited parking space.

The type of person owning a 6000sq ft house is'nt likely to depend on the state in old age.

flutered

Eric Cartman wrote: »

As have I, we have protection orders on old country houses and castles of the 4000+ sq ft variety because theyre so aesthetically integral to the area , yet the very idea of building something new of a similar size is apparently blasphemy in the planning world

add also the fact that they are exempt frpm the property tax, mostly they are owned by public figurs, also if they open to the public on set dates they have other exemptions, one could argue that their owners have arranged that nothing like theirs will ever again be built.

FunkyDa2

They must be a bit more relaxed about these things, down in Limerick...

http://streetviewireland.tumblr.com/post/1293591103/who-lives-in-a-house-like-this-wliahlt5

Flynner1313

A judge ordered the house be demolished. How can this house still be there?

If it is then the message is not only can you ignore the planning law but you can ignore the courts as well.

Or did something happen since the ruling that we have not heard of?

Situation

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

1 off housing in the middle of nowhere costs the state a fortune. I'm glad that planning is at last taking a stand on it.

Gatling said its still there on google maps.

air

Situation wrote: »

Gatling said its still there on google maps.

Which means nothing as the imagery is likely years old.

Gatling

Situation wrote: »

Gatling said its still there on google maps.

If I was looking at the correct property

Arbiter of Good Taste

Eric Cartman wrote: »

it doesnt have to be in the middle of nowhere , along an existing road just outside village boundries adds no cost to the state and suits people far more than generic estates with curtain twitching neighbors, noisy kids and limited parking space.

The type of person owning a 6000sq ft house is'nt likely to depend on the state in old age.

Considering this guy was unemployed at some stage (if not still), then, yes, it is a possibility. In fact there are plenty of large houses in the country - not necessarily this size, but around 4000 sq ft that were built cheaply and the couple would definitely not be considered high net worth individuals - shop workers, truck drivers, etc. if the vast amount of their savings is going on the house - housing costs don't end when the building work does - there's not going to be too much left over for old age.

Nash Bridges

I'd be very curious to know if this demolition was actually enforced. If it isn't it will set an awful precedent for planning in rural areas in future. Despite the numerous flaws with the planning process it cannot simply be ignored.

air wrote: »

Which means nothing as the imagery is likely years old.

AFIK Google street view images are all from Summer 2010 and are somewhat dated.
However the overhead satellite images are updated periodically and have an image date when viewed with Google Earth, most of Ireland was updated throughout mid 2013.

Can you post a link to the spot perchance and we could have a look for an image date?

L1011

Going on the planning file, its still there when Google's last set of aerial imagery was taken.

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Faughan+Rise/@53.6732876,-6.7959879,238m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x48675bd6e4e911d5:0x6420256ccd684782

They asked for retention permission again in 2012 and 2013 - if I was in Meath CC planning I'd have driven the bulldozer down there myself at this stage, absolutely taking the piss.

Gatling

There's no news reports past 2010 on the subject ,
Should have gone 2 years ago ,

Nash Bridges

MYOB wrote: »

Going on the planning file, its still there when Google's last set of aerial imagery was taken.

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Faughan+Rise/@53.6732876,-6.7959879,238m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x48675bd6e4e911d5:0x6420256ccd684782

They asked for retention permission again in 2012 and 2013 - if I was in Meath CC planning I'd have driven the bulldozer down there myself at this stage, absolutely taking the piss.

That satellite image was taken on 12th July 2013, so it was still there then at least, 12 months after the court deadline.

Gatling

Nash Bridges wrote: »

That satellite image was taken on 12th July 2013, so it was still there then at least, 12 months after the court deadline.

Sneeky concerned citizen phone call time

Bill G

Seems they applied for planning permission again (and was deemed invalid):

http://www.meath.ie/CountyCouncil/Planning/WeeklyPlanningPermissionLists/File,50913,en.pdf

Search for "Murray"

Cuddlesworth

Gatling wrote: »

There's no news reports past 2010 on the subject ,
Should have gone 2 years ago ,

I doubt it will ever be knocked. It is unsellable though.

jiminho

Gatling wrote: »

Sneeky concerned citizen phone call time

I know this was a joke but why is half the country like this? Why don't we all mind our own f**king business. We'll let the government take care of this. The number of times I hear PP or small extensions being denied because of neighbours even if you comply with everything under the sun.

pwurple

jiminho wrote: »

I know this was a joke but why is half the country like this? Why don't we all mind our own f**king business. We'll let the government take care of this. The number of times I hear PP or small extensions being denied because of neighbours even if you comply with everything under the sun.

Because some people are civic minded members of the community who like to see laws followed and rulings being upheld? Not just keep the head down types who walk past as they see crimes being commited.

TheDriver

anyone have a google maps link etc to see this house?

knucklehead6

jiminho wrote: »

I know this was a joke but why is half the country like this? Why don't we all mind our own f**king business. We'll let the government take care of this. The number of times I hear PP or small extensions being denied because of neighbours even if you comply with everything under the sun.

You can't pick and choose what laws you obey. This guy has basically pissed all over the law of the land purely cos he wants an admittedly gorgeous house.

Ray Palmer

Deleted User wrote: »

European Housing Review 2009: Ireland has floor areas per person of a fifth less than Western European average

You would want to read into how this is worked out and how relevant it. Firstly one study is only referring to new builds from 2003 onwards. We also have large homes than many European countries. You also have to consider smaller dwellings.
Having spent time visiting friends all around Europe I can assure you many countries have properties lived in that you can't legally live in here. Go to a typical apartment in Madrid, Rome, Paris and you will see how small they are.

To give you an example of how skewed the housing values can be my Aunt, Uncle and 2 cousins live in an apartment in Rome. It is a small 2 bed and they are all adults. My cousins share a box room. They all have jobs and the parents have well paying jobs. They also own a holiday home as do the majority of people who live in the complex. Those houses drastically increase the living space they have on paper. The reason they live in the place is because it is a semi-state run block with rent control. They couldn't afford to live close to Rome any other way so have kept it.

What is a little odd in Ireland is the traditional building in the countryside are quite small. So we don't have large houses in the countryside to bring up the living spaces average. You can buy a massive house in the French countryside for very little, mean while in Paris you will live in a very small apartment.

Anyway the house is rightly being knocked down.

Lantus

You really need to see the link and the house to get an idea of what we are talking about here.

This is not a families desperate attempt to provide a minimum standard of living for their family, far from it in fact. It is an opulent exercise in decadence and greed with the finishes, materials and overall build dripping of wealth and abundance.

Its a mansion laid out as a stately manor with secure entrance, double garages, extensive lawns. The maintenance costs as well as heating and electrical costs must be enormous. The idea that the owner is some hard done by peasant, another victim of the downturn and living on his last bean is an insult to every hard working citizen of this country.

There are far too many people who believe that they are better than the rest of us. After this ruling hopefully it is one less. Once this dripping pit of wealth and opulence is castrated from the honest land of Ireland we will all be the better for it.

h2005

Lantus wrote: »

You really need to see the link and the house to get an idea of what we are talking about here.

This is not a families desperate attempt to provide a minimum standard of living for their family, far from it in fact. It is an opulent exercise in decadence and greed with the finishes, materials and overall build dripping of wealth and abundance.

Its a mansion laid out as a stately manor with secure entrance, double garages, extensive lawns. The maintenance costs as well as heating and electrical costs must be enormous. The idea that the owner is some hard done by peasant, another victim of the downturn and living on his last bean is an insult to every hard working citizen of this country.

There are far too many people who believe that they are better than the rest of us. After this ruling hopefully it is one less. Once this dripping pit of wealth and opulence is castrated from the honest land of Ireland we will all be the better for it.

There should be consequences for disregard planning regulations and these should be followed through. Your post however smacks of jealousy. If someone can afford it and it is within regulations it is their business.

knucklehead6

h2005 wrote: »

There should be consequences for disregard planning regulations and these should be followed through. Your post however smacks of jealousy. If someone can afford it and it is within regulations it is their business.

The key here being within regulations......... This particular house isn't.

h2005

knucklehead6 wrote: »

The key here being within regulations......... This particular house isn't.

I agree that's why I pointed it out.

ShaShaBear

h2005 wrote: »

There should be consequences for disregard planning regulations and these should be followed through. Your post however smacks of jealousy. If someone can afford it and it is within regulations it is their business.

I think what Lantus is referring to is the fact that the officials involved in coming to the decision of having the mansion demolished said that they did so with regret as they were aware that the owner was a victim of the downturn in society.

I'd like to see his income as a plumber before the recession if this is the case!

Bandana boy

danbohan wrote: »

this case must be fought tooth and nail by RISE etc , its time that people in countryside can build a '' little'' house for themselves and not have to listen to green sw dependants telling them what they can and cannot do , if you dont live in the countryside what goes on in countryside is none of your buisness !

It does if you want us to continue to pay over the odds for your upkeep ,social services etc

cmore123

Serves them right. Three children.... I was one of more than that,raised in a house a third the size. Unless you've all the grandparents living with you, plus 15 children, nobody needs a house that size.

As other posters have said, they have thumbed their noses at the law and get what's coming. We're always complaining about politicians who do that and demanding they be faced down. These people may not be politicians, but the law has to be applied and this is as blatant a case as might be found.

Personally, I'm very frustrated with many aspects of the law, but that doesn't mean I can ignore it.

overshoot

jiminho wrote: »

I know this was a joke but why is half the country like this? Why don't we all mind our own f**king business. We'll let the government take care of this. The number of times I hear PP or small extensions being denied because of neighbours even if you comply with everything under the sun.

you havnt, a neighbour cant object because doesnt want it. well he can but he needs valid grounds on planning/legal matters for it to be considered. so if it is rejected it doesnt comply with "everything under the sun," if it did why wasnt it appealed to An Bord Pleanala? Its even possible to get a works order and gain access to the neighbours land without consent if its reasonable under 2009 legislation.

he was a plumber, he works in the building trade and knew exactly what he was doing. I would like to know the grounds for rejection and the online planning file should show it (applications after 2004 have this), along with all the drawings but they arent there for some reason (withdrawn due to court case maybe?)

jiminho

overshoot wrote: »

you havnt, a neighbour cant object because doesnt want it. well he can but he needs valid grounds on planning/legal matters for it to be considered. so if it is rejected it doesnt comply with "everything under the sun," if it did why wasnt it appealed to An Bord Pleanala? Its even possible to get a works order and gain access to the neighbours land without consent if its reasonable under 2009 legislation.

he was a plumber, he works in the building trade and knew exactly what he was doing. I would like to know the grounds for rejection and the online planning file should show it (applications after 2004 have this), along with all the drawings but they arent there for some reason (withdrawn due to court case maybe?)

You're technically correct and I probably wasn't specific enough. Neighbours can object to an extension if they feel they might have a greater sense of enclosure because of it and while they can't object to any impact on views or overall aesthetics (provided there in keeping with the existing house and neighbourhood), they can object to their overall outlook from their home. And these issues would be considered subjective. At the very least they can delay planning applications. I didn't mean to imply neighbours can object to a planning application because they "feel like it", my apologies, but neighbours can and do object to these applications for small, subjective items.

Yes, this guy has made a stupid decision to build the place but the whole world doesn't need to get involved and I'm not saying there are. Tattle tailing is such a babyish thing to do. People who are directly effected by this house are well within their right to object, complain etc but for onlookers who feel they should put in an anonymous complaint or "make a quick phone call" should just get over themselves. Don't get involved and just carry on with your own life. John Smith in the apartment opposite me doesn't have car insurance. Will I call the Gards to inform them? No, because it's none of my business and I'm not a prick. Opinions will differ but that's mine.

Teyla Emmagan

jiminho wrote: »

You're technically correct and I probably wasn't specific enough. Neighbours can object to an extension if they feel they might have a greater sense of enclosure because of it and while they can't object to any impact on views or overall aesthetics (provided there in keeping with the existing house and neighbourhood), they can object to their overall outlook from their home. And these issues would be considered subjective. At the very least they can delay planning applications. I didn't mean to imply neighbours can object to a planning application because they "feel like it", my apologies, but neighbours can and do object to these applications for small, subjective items.

And they are perfectly entitled to do so, and so what if it delays the planning process if the authorities find their 'subjective items' have some value? Can you imagine what the place would be like if people built what they wanted and no one was ever allowed object to what was being put up in the garden next door to them? It certainly wouldn't be the utopia you envisage. We live in a society, not in isolation. When you erect a permanent structure, people are entitled to say so if they don't like it, which is well and good.

chris85

cmore123 wrote: »

Serves them right. Three children.... I was one of more than that,raised in a house a third the size. Unless you've all the grandparents living with you, plus 15 children, nobody needs a house that size.

As other posters have said, they have thumbed their noses at the law and get what's coming. We're always complaining about politicians who do that and demanding they be faced down. These people may not be politicians, but the law has to be applied and this is as blatant a case as might be found.

Personally, I'm very frustrated with many aspects of the law, but that doesn't mean I can ignore it.

Funny you should mention politicians, if this was a politician getting away with having no regard to planning laws you know the papers would be all over it and would be public uproar about it with many stories about brown envelopes.

jiminho

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

And they are perfectly entitled to do so, and so what if it delays the planning process if the authorities find their 'subjective items' have some value? Can you imagine what the place would be like if people built what they wanted and no one was ever allowed object to what was being put up in the garden next door to them? It certainly wouldn't be the utopia you envisage. We live in a society, not in isolation. When you erect a permanent structure, people are entitled to say so if they don't like it, which is well and good.

Yes I agree and I didn't say anything to the contrary. My first post only said PP applications can get delayed or denied because of neighbours and I was just proving my point, that's all.

pwurple

cmore123 wrote: »

Serves them right. Three children.... I was one of more than that,raised in a house a third the size. Unless you've all the grandparents living with you, plus 15 children, nobody needs a house that size.

I don't mind people building enormous houses if they can afford it. Why not, if you are successful and want to enjoy your hard earned cash. I mean, the building itself would generate employment for its upkeep, and maybe build something beautiful for the future generations. Fota house, bantry house, farmleigh etc.

Nobody NEEDS a dishwasher, or a washing machine or central heating either, but there is no shame in having them if you can afford it.

But that is not to say you can just ignore planning permission. Plenty of huge houses built WITH planning. No reason he couldn't have gone through the process.

knucklehead6

jiminho wrote: »

John Smith in the apartment opposite me doesn't have car insurance. Will I call the Gards to inform them? No, because it's none of my business and I'm not a prick. Opinions will differ but that's mine.

And if John Smith knocks you down and you end up out of work for 6 months without pay you can feel fine about letting an uninsured driver out on the roads. Me, personally, I'd be straight on the phone, and to hell with what you think of me.

Lantus

ShaShaBear wrote: »

I think what Lantus is referring to is the fact that the officials involved in coming to the decision of having the mansion demolished said that they did so with regret as they were aware that the owner was a victim of the downturn in society.

I'd like to see his income as a plumber before the recession if this is the case!

exactly the point!

it is a planning issue but there are scales of planning issues and this is well off the scale. I have many a conversation with well versed landlords who spin tales of woe and despair and how they can barely afford 3c of gas and a meal every other day. If you let them ramble on enough off they often trip over themselves as they love to boast about recent cash purchases of properties they have obtained. The richest often claim to be the poorest

Chet T16

TheDriver wrote: »

anyone have a google maps link etc to see this house?

This is it
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.6736513,-6.7967706,227m/data=!3m1!1e3

No streetview outside unfortunately although backed up by the Meath planning website

http://lp4.meathcoco.ie/locationpublisher42/default.aspx?themename=Planning&mapname=Planning&searchname=Planning%20Application&searchvalue=KA70152

Which throws up two letters with "recent" dates