Couple Ordered to Demolish House

partyguinness

Ray Palmer wrote: »

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.

That's what my planner friends moan about. They are trained etc to follow a particular policy/guidelines and then they are pushed to the side e.g. the file taken off them, when they are following their own guidelines. Plenty of Councils will grant permissions that violate their own Dev Plan. It makes a mockery of the system and it is open to abuse...but that's democracy eh?

The planners themselves are not offered inducements but some of friends have very very grave suspicions that those up the chain do come under pressure (not saying a bribe) but 'pressure' to grant a particular development.

I have been in the car with planners who will complian as they drive past a particular estate about how it should have not been granted etc etc. But of course they get the rap then from Joe Public.

GavMan

knucklehead6 wrote: »

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

Deduct at source as per the legislation (i.e. Welfare payments...)

jmayo

overshoot wrote: »

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 down 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

I know of someone who tried to build a very energy efficient passive house, which was a square two storey.
And yes it was architectually designed.

The planner actually came back and advised they build multiple conecting cottages which was supposedly more in keeping with the area.

To add insult to injury some other people in area had over the previous few years been allowed build massive 2 storey houses, houses that stuck out like a sore thumb and were visible from miles away.

Also the planners design would have negated a lot of what they were trying to achieve as regards little glass on northern aspect and large amount of glass on southern aspect.

And maybe someone who is connected with planners in this country can advise as to their professional and practical qualifications ?

Planning in this country is a joke and this guy makes it look an even bigger one.

I always laugh when I see some of the house designs on Grand Designs.
There is no way in hell anyone would be allowed build anything resembling some of those designs in a lot of our counties.

h2005

have2flushtwice wrote: »

6000 sq ft, and he a plumber?

good god there's something wrong there straight away.

Are plumbers exempt from running successful businesses?

overshoot

jmayo wrote: »

I

And maybe someone who is connected with planners in this country can advise as to their professional and practical qualifications ?
.

ah i love that one, i know someone who asked in relation to the new building regulations; to submit material you must be qualified... what about the people who are validating & enforcing it? didnt go down well!

Eric Cartman

have2flushtwice wrote: »

6000 sq ft, and he a plumber?

good god there's something wrong there straight away.

it was a self build, a plumber would have mates in other trades , probably built for the cost of buying a 2000sq ft house at market rates at the time

Graces7

partyguinness wrote: »

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.

that is interesting and very revealing,. years later i reported a huge new barn in an attempt to stop the owner using it to ill treat animals and that too had no planning permission. when i called the council the girl just sighed and said she would report it to the enforcement officer.

a country only runs well if folk keep to the laws..they seem in ireland to run rings around the law and it only matters if you get caught

TireeTerror

Some species we are when we impose laws preventing a man from providing shelter for himself and his family. Yes its a big house, but so what, its a big country for the amount of people living here.

I call for a return to the stone-age where we could build what we want where we want and we could fight for everything.

Gambas

ilovesleep wrote: »

I feel sorry for this man and his family. Surely a prison sentence would do to punish him instead of getting him to demolish his home.
I agree with chatterpillar too. Its a waste to knock such a good house.

But it's not a perfectly good house if it contravenes planning law.

partyguinness

TireeTerror wrote: »

Some species we are when we impose laws preventing a man from providing shelter for himself and his family. Yes its a big house, but so what, its a big country for the amount of people living here.

I call for a return to the stone-age where we could build what we want where we want and we could fight for everything.

That is some shelter for this poor downtrodden man...

He can build all the shelter he wants but within set guidelines.

We as a 'species' have developed rules/laws/regualtions over thousands of years as we recognised quite early that we cant just do what we want when we want as it leads to civil and social unrest. But that's just a boring topic...

I think most would agree that planning laws in general are a good thing

TireeTerror

partyguinness wrote: »

That is some shelter for this poor downtrodden man...

He can build all the shelter he wants but within set guidelines.

We as a 'species' have developed rules/laws/regualtions over thousands of years as we recognised quite early that we cant just do what we want when we want as it leads to civil and social unrest. But that's just a boring topic...

I think most would agree that planning laws in general are a good thing

I do agree, but there is a small part of me, the rebellious side, that winces when I see this kind of thing happen.

partyguinness

TireeTerror wrote: »

I do agree, but there is a small part of me, the rebellious side, that winces when I see this kind of thing happen.

That's the old hang up from the Brits taking our land and two fingers to authority part of your brain...we all have it deep down..:o

Gambas

partyguinness wrote: »

That's the old hang up from the Brits taking our land and two fingers to authority part of your brain...we all have it deep down..:o

I knew the Brits were behind this.

partyguinness

Gambas wrote: »

I knew the Brits were behind this.

Was there ever any doubt??

Ray Palmer

partyguinness wrote: »

That's what my planner friends moan about. They are trained etc to follow a particular policy/guidelines and then they are pushed to the side e.g. the file taken off them, when they are following their own guidelines. Plenty of Councils will grant permissions that violate their own Dev Plan. It makes a mockery of the system and it is open to abuse...but that's democracy eh?

So no proved cases?

Have you ever read a development plan? There is a lot of room to allow permission for property to be built that planners will say no to. Generally there is scope for change.

I believe all actions taken by councillors in this regard show be publically reported and questioned.

TireeTerror

Gambas wrote: »

I knew the Brits were behind this.

If youre going to hate the Brits, can you at least just hate the English, us Scots were forced over, we had no choice like you! At least you fought back, we don't even have the balls to vote yes now we have the chance!

partyguinness

TireeTerror wrote: »

If youre going to hate the Brits, can you at least just hate the English, us Scots were forced over, we had no choice like you! At least you fought back, we don't even have the balls to vote yes now we have the chance!

No dice.

It was the British army, paid for by the British government fighting under the Union Jack for the British m

The_Conductor

And as we've now veered into bashing our next door neighbours- this thread is closed.