Couple Ordered to Demolish House

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should show it (applications after 2004 have this), along with all the drawings but they arent there for some reason (withdrawn due to court case maybe?)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should show it (applications after 2004 have this), along with all the drawings but they arent there for some reason (withdrawn due to court case maybe?)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

mrmitty

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.

Since when did the right to due process become "taking the piss"?

knucklehead6

mrmitty wrote: »

Since when did the right to due process become "taking the piss"?

Due process would have been them appealing the denial of planning permission before saying a big fcuk you to An Bord Pleanála and building the house anyway.

Taking the piss is EXACTLY what these people have done

TheDriver

Thanks Chet, that is some size of a hotel/house......

GavMan

I'd rather see them have to pay penalties on the property tax for it at this point. Like pay triple for the next 30 years or something...

If you look at the streetview from the road running adjacent to the road its on, it's practically invisible from sight. You can only see the roof. It doesn't seem to be causing much harm.

If its knocked and they're out of work, they're likely to be a further burden to Meath CoCo.

I agree you can't build whatever and where ever you want but there's probably more imaginative and punitive ways to punish them

knucklehead6

GavMan wrote: »

I'd rather see them have to pay penalties on the property tax for it at this point. Like pay triple for the next 30 years or something...

If you look at the streetview from the road running adjacent to the road its on, it's practically invisible from sight. You can only see the roof. It doesn't seem to be causing much harm.

If its knocked and they're out of work, they're likely to be a further burden to Meath CoCo.

I agree you can't build whatever and where ever you want but there's probably more imaginative and punitive ways to punish them

If this lad is ignoring planning laws do you HONESTLY think he's paying property tax???

loyatemu

How can you apply for retention for a building that you've already been court-ordered to demolish? Surely Meath CoCo should just throw the letters in the bin.

partyguinness

Delighted that Meath CC pursued this as many CC don't have the balls/resources to enforce their own planning regualtions preferring the nice easy life: "Sure just blast in a retention and it will be grand out" and get the local yocal Councillor to do some lobbying behind the scene if the planning officer is not playing ball.

Ireland has been cursed by this type of two fingers to the law of the land for decades (from the top down mind you).

jmayo

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.

And with that attitude you sir/madam are one of the reasons the country is the sh*thole it has always been and probably always will be.

As others have pointed out planning is not denied because of a neighbour taking a hissy fit.
And on the contrary I know of a few cases where planning was given or ignored in spite of very valid objections from neighbours, all because the ones building were well connected to councils and politicans.

jiminho wrote: »

... Tattle tailing is such a babyish thing to do.

Oh FFS it's about time Irish people started behaving like adults not school yard adolescents.
Of course if we had then maybe the country would not be as fooked as it is, where half the people went around, throughout the boom bubble economy years, behaving like teenagers at their first disco with booze.

The problem in Ireland has been that enough people haven't spoken out.
Remember all those children being abused.
Well it didn't happen in isolation. People knew and people decided that it was none of their business and decided to keep their gobs shut.

With your attitude you would probably find a welcoming home within the ranks of the Gardaí. :mad:

jmayo

Ray Palmer wrote: »

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.

You usually find the houses in the French countryside are centred around small villages and not just strewn about the place as here.
Also you find, in my experience of certain areas, that the parents move out of the main farmhouse and into a reformed store or barn and the next generation take on the big main farmhouse.
There are no new 5/6 bungalows for all the kids built next door.

knucklehead6 wrote: »

If this lad is ignoring planning laws do you HONESTLY think he's paying property tax???

Well if hiw house doesn't offically exist then they can hardly charge him for it.

partyguinness

Some of my best friends are Planner with various LAs up and down the country.

Quite often, a lot of applications are denied by the planners for valid reasons but of course some gentle lobbying behind the scenes and the qualified planner is overruled anyway by the local gombeen Councillor.

It is a constant source of depair for the Planners themselves. Sometimes even when the application is nonsense they know it will be granted anyway as a result of lobbying.

The Elysian in Cork is a blatant example. My friends said it was a joke and should never have been granted. Broke every rule in the planners book...but of course it was granted. Nothing to do with deep pockets and connections of Michael Flynn obviously...:rolleyes:

riclad

IT was common for people in rural area,s to build an extension ,then apply for planning permission to retain it.
Most of the time they get away with it.

I ,ve NO sympathy for this bloke, for the cost of building this house he could have bought a large house in the area .
IN the boom plumbers were making great money.

IF i was the judge ,i,d give him an option ,knock the house down or give it to a local charity, save the expense of demolition.
IF planning laws are not enforced ,people will just buy a site ,and build anything on it.
ITS not like there,s a shortgage of houses for sale,in rural area,s
i know a bloke bought an old 2000ft house,
got planning permission, and demolished old house , built a new house on the same
site.

Sounds like he wanted to build a large house and could not get planning permission to do so.

Eric Cartman

riclad wrote: »

IT was common for people in rural area,s to build an extension ,then apply for planning permission to retain it.
Most of the time they get away with it.

I ,ve NO sympathy for this bloke, for the cost of building this house he could have bought a large house in the area .
IN the boom plumbers were making great money.

IF i was the judge ,i,d give him an option ,knock the house down or give it to a local charity, save the expense of demolition.
IF planning laws are not enforced ,people will just buy a site ,and build anything on it.
ITS not like there,s a shortgage of houses for sale,in rural area,s
i know a bloke bought an old 2000ft house,
got planning permission, and demolished old house , built a new house on the same
site.

Sounds like he wanted to build a large house and could not get planning permission to do so.

theres a shortage of houses in the 4000sq ft + dimension and luxury homes.

yes, the planning laws are so flawed here that you cant build a luxury home of a decent size because of begrudgery and the coverall 'protecting the landscape' argument.

ZeroThreat

GavMan wrote: »

I'd rather see them have to pay penalties on the property tax for it at this point. Like pay triple for the next 30 years or something...

If you look at the streetview from the road running adjacent to the road its on, it's practically invisible from sight. You can only see the roof. It doesn't seem to be causing much harm.

If its knocked and they're out of work, they're likely to be a further burden to Meath CoCo.

I agree you can't build whatever and where ever you want but there's probably more imaginative and punitive ways to punish them

IMO, making an example (hopefully to deter other scumbags doing similarly in the future) is more important in this case than possible future costs.

With any luck, this tit and his brood will leave the state for good and feck off to someplace far way like Oz and annoy the authorities there instead.

riclad

IRELAND is a beautiful country, i respect the councils wish to set a standard for houses that fit in with the environment,
and not have gigantic houses built anywhere .
if you want to live in a mega mansion go to the usa .
Or another country.
OR build a smaller house ,within the limits of the planning laws.

ZeroThreat

riclad wrote: »

IRELAND is a beautiful country, i respect the councils wish to set a standard for houses that fit in with the environment,
and not have gigantic houses built anywhere .
if you want to live in a mega mansion go to the usa .
Or another country.
OR build a smaller house ,within the limits of the planning laws.

We have far, far too few trees though tbh.

Graces7

please scuse bad typing. broken wrist

am glad to see action being taken as seems usual in ireland not to do this an in rural areas folk seem to do as they like with impunity.

once queried activity at a neighbouring proprty an checked the planning permission online. little resemblance between the planning and the building. reported it and they found 29 serious infractions of the planning permission. they get 30 days to finish work
he even had a helipad and on a busy trunk road
next thing the house was up for sale as it was. left there and there seem to be so mnay ugly buildingd without planning as there are few inspectors.

this was in donegal

partyguinness

Graces7 wrote: »

please scuse bad typing. broken wrist

am glad to see action being taken as seems usual in ireland not to do this an in rural areas folk seem to do as they like with impunity.

once queried activity at a neighbouring proprty an checked the planning permission online. little resemblance between the planning and the building. reported it and they found 29 serious infractions of the planning permission. they get 30 days to finish work
he even had a helipad and on a busy trunk road
next thing the house was up for sale as it was. left there and there seem to be so mnay ugly buildingd without planning as there are few inspectors.

this was in donegal

I agree, I grew up in rural Ireland in a farming community and yes, there is an attitude that it is our land and we should be able to do what we want.

It is a hang up from the old landlord class system and resentment toward authority.

As regards inspectors, get this. I know this for a fact, in 2007-2008, Cork County Council which I believe is the biggest LA in terms of geography had two (yes 2) planning enforcement officers for the entire county...:eek:

Enforcement was not their priority and they depended on the banks and solicitors dealing with property transactions to effectively act as watchdog. An enforcement officer said that to me.

have2flushtwice

6000 sq ft, and he a plumber?

good god there's something wrong there straight away.

Ray Palmer

Considering all the claims of brown envelopes I was wondering if anybody could point to a story where this applies to residential property? The only story I am aware of that has been sort of proved was Liffey Valley.

I have friends who worked in planning and they are pretty adamant it doesn't happen the way people suggest and as such doesn't really happen.

I have heard plenty of stories myself but even on my own investigation I could see the stories were BS. Things like he was refused planning permission but he got some councillor to override the planning department. Then I had a look at the application and you can see amendments made to conform to planning stipulations in design.

overshoot

riclad wrote: »

IRELAND is a beautiful country, i respect the councils wish to set a standard for houses that fit in with the environment,
and not have gigantic houses built anywhere .
if you want to live in a mega mansion go to the usa .
Or another country.
OR build a smaller house ,within the limits of the planning laws.

its more than possible to build 'gigantic' houses in the countryside. they just need to be broken down in scale & designed for the site and not some copy and paste job from a plan in bungalow bliss or whatever the gigantic house equivalent is (or whatever john has up the road). Its completely unsuited for modern day building and will fail to take advantage of solar gain, views, insulation levels, context etc.

of course 98% of people in this country dont want to pay for a proper design (which involves liaising with the planners) and will just moan when they are told to go away, complain that their house is cold and the cost of oil, the list goes on. Id imagine this case is a prime example of it