Court orders demolition of family home.

starbelgrade

Dohnny Jepp wrote: »

Yeah, but lets say they don't knock it down and just fine the guy. What happens next is every chancer who was refused planning permission will just go and do the same thing and think "hey well if that guy got away with it. . ."

There's every chance of it & what's more, legally, it sets a precedence which would essentially let people build whatever the hell they want, then essentially get away with it a pay off.

In that way, those who can afford to do so, can ignore the laws that everyone else has to comply with.

Skinfull

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Sulmac wrote: »

did the they think they were above the law?

Tolerance = ZERO

Sometimes the law can be an ass.

So's you're face.
Black and white issue here. They were told NO, they bult anyway, now they are told to demolish. Tough **** paddy, thats what ya get.

Dohnny Jepp

starbelgrade wrote: »

There's every chance of it & what's more, legally, it sets a precedence which would essentially let people build whatever the hell they want, then essentially get away with it a pay off.

In that way, those who can afford to do so, can ignore the laws that everyone else has to comply with.

Well I'm not sure if it would set a legal precedence. The precedence would only be set if they let him off. If say they fined him 20 cent, that wouldn't restrict them to using the exact same type of punishment or a fine of the same value for the next case.. . . . I think:o

K-9

collegegal wrote: »

So basically your saying "**** the law, do what you want because you have a few quid". Its people like you and the family in question that have themselves in situations like this.

Now he has no money they want sympathy.

Who the feck builds a 6,500 sq. ft. house though? Typical excesses of the Bubble economy.

If this was in England or Northern Ireland, there would be no hope in hell of him getting a 24 month suspension. It'd never have got built in the first place. Shows you the difference in the mentalities. The chancer is respected and sympathised with here. Now people know why Bertie got re-elected.

Butch Cassidy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

According to 6/1 news he is currently barely able to find work and was given 2 years to remove the property. The state will probably end up having to house himand his family at taxpayers expense.

Such is the level of thinking in our society really. There's a gigantic housing list with people shifted into B&Bs and hostels ad hoc yet the state goes ahead and demolishes a building people can live in. Much like the ghost estates we all know too well about. Progressive ideas just do not prevail in our country.

The house is built so we are we are. Knocking it down is greatly immoral and a worse wrong than yr man going above the law/giving two fingers/defying authority etc. Sure punish them, remove them from the house and repossess it by all means but demolishing it? Christ, we really see we our priorities are don't we? Nothing about the punishment fitting the crime at all....

ejmaztec wrote: »

Perhaps the brown envelope didn't have enough cash in it. It's always a problem knowing how much to give them. You win some, you lose some.

Quite true. Sometimes you can give too much. Usually €5k at a digout gathering for mates is good enough to get a "I'll look after you" nod and a wink from youknowwho. See in this case the man probably didn't keep up his payments and possibly was handing over the wrong currency!

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

That's just to put a sympathetic angle on the story. This tool went outside the laws, he didn't just build a house without planning permission, he applied for permission for a house and when he was refused he stuck two fingers up at the system and built a house twice the size. Was he thinking about his family then? How did he actually fund this build? He couldn't have had a mortgage as planning permission would have been needed. Did he think that because he had the money he could do what he wanted?

Ah Tom, poor Tom, c'mere. Have you any idea about the people who went above the laws, stuck two fingers up at us and destroyed our country?

I love how RTE can focus on this stuff and let the Anglo sharks and hounds off lightly. No reports on the property tycoons that owe hundreds of millions that aren't put in jail for non-payment of loans.

K-9

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

Such is the level of thinking in our society really. There's a gigantic housing list with people shifted into B&Bs and hostels ad hoc yet the state goes ahead and demolishes a building people can live in. Much like the ghost estates we all know too well about. Progressive ideas just do not prevail in our country.

The house is built so we are we are. Knocking it down is greatly immoral and a worse wrong than yr man going above the law/giving two fingers/defying authority etc. Sure punish them, remove them from the house and repossess it by all means but demolishing it? Christ, we really see we our priorities are don't we? Nothing about the punishment fitting the crime at all....

You only do it for a few houses, then the chancers cop on the risk isn't worth it and don't do it anymore.

Butch Cassidy wrote:

Quite true. Sometimes you can give too much. Usually €5k at a digout gathering for mates is good enough to get a "I'll look after you" nod and a wink from youknowwho. See in this case the man probably didn't keep up his payments and possibly was handing over the wrong currency!




Ah Tom, poor Tom, c'mere. Have you any idea about the people who went above the laws, stuck two fingers up at us and destroyed our country?

I love how RTE can focus on this stuff and let the Anglo sharks and hounds off lightly. No reports on the property tycoons that owe hundreds of millions that aren't put in jail for non-payment of loans.

There needs to be a whole sea change in attitude in this country, particularly the "well, it is ok for them attitude". That perpetuates the problem.

starbelgrade

Butch Cassidy;

You are confusing too many issues here - the housing lists, the ghost estates, alleged back handers & the legal issues are all valid debating points, but they have nothing to do with this case.

The simple facts in this case are;

- the applied previously for planning & were refused, possibly on the grounds that the application was for a house too big or too unsuitable for the area & available services

- despite that, they ignored the refusal & went ahead and built a house twice the size of the originally refused application, a 588m.sq "mansion" - 3 times larger than the average reasonably sized 4 bedroom family home.

You simply cannot build something of that size & expect the council to grant retention permission. If you do so, you are an idiot, no way round it. You might get away with building a shed or garage that's a bit too large, but at the back of your house, but not a big, f*ck off house that is a blot on the landscape.

It is unfortunate that this happened, but they really only have themselves to blame for their utter arrogance & stupidity and were very luck that the judge allowed them a 2 year stay of execution.

Doop

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

Christ, we really see we our priorities are don't we? Nothing about the punishment fitting the crime at all....

How does this punishment not fit the crime????
He built something illegal now has to take it down.... makes perfect sense

If you demolish something you shouldn't of, you get ordered to re-instate
eg http://www.independent.ie/national-news/convent-demolition-may-cost-firm-8364127m-1254229.html

Our planing laws are far from perfect, but they are there for the greater good.

Wibbs

starbelgrade wrote: »

You simply cannot build something of that size & expect the council to grant retention permission. If you do so, you are an idiot, no way round it. You might get away with building a shed or garage that's a bit too large, but at the back of your house, but not a big, f*ck off house that is a blot on the landscape.

I'd love to agree but I can think of two houses nearby to me in dublin that were refused PP, were built anyway, really stick out and are still standing.

I think this guy was very foolish and figured "ah shuure wont they leave it" as for so long stuff was ignored in our planning laws. Though we're not nearly as bad as some of our european neighbours.

Poor Uncle Tom

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

.... Have you any idea about the people who went above the laws, stuck two fingers up at us and destroyed our country?

I love how RTE can focus on this stuff and let the Anglo sharks and hounds off lightly. No reports on the property tycoons that owe hundreds of millions that aren't put in jail for non-payment of loans.

If this is meant to be an arguement for leniency, it's a very very poor one.

John_Rambo

Stinicker wrote: »

if you got money then you should be allowed build what you want

So, I can sell my house in Dublin, buy land next door to you and build a by products factory? Set up a halting site? Build a hipy commune? Build a fook off horrible mansion.... Cop on Stinicker. You can't just build what you want cause you own the land, that will never work.

tbh

ejmaztec wrote: »

50% Idiot Tax will be introduced in the next budget.

we already have an idiot tax. It's called the lotto.

skywalker_208

If he was allowed get away with this what is to stop anyone building any house they want anywhere they want?
Examples have to be made to show planning permission means just that... getting PERMISSION

Lando Griffin

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

He should get it insured and then set it on fire.

I doubt it could be insured as no planning permission was granted. It would probably be like him to start the fire from a leaking has rise that he installed. How did he get connected to water and Electric if he had no planning, I thought the ESB were strict enough on procedures.

skywalker_208

Lando Griffin wrote: »

How did he get connected to water and Electric if he had no planning, I thought the ESB were strict enough on procedures.

ESB do not ask for planning details. All you need to send them is your application form and a cert from your electrician.
He likely has his own well and sewerage system so didnt need connecting to any local infrastructure.

reprazant

John_Rambo wrote: »

So, I can sell my house in Dublin, buy land next door to you and build a by products factory? Set up a halting site? Build a hipy commune? Build a fook off horrible mansion.... Cop on Stinicker. You can't just build what you want cause you own the land, that will never work.

Or a massive pork fat rendering plant.

Everyone needs pork fat.

syklops

ricman wrote: »

One reason we need a planning system is to build proper services ,transport
,shops ,schools ,water supplys,sewer systems there needs to be x amount of houses in an area.AND we need a planning system to protect the environment and run an energy effecient society.Good planning means people should not have to drive long distances to work ,school ,shops and more people will uses buses or the luas .

You had me to here. Absolutely correct on all points. Then you said...

that house is like an hummer car , ridiculously large, grossly ineffecient in terms of cost per person and damaging to the environment.

This I disagree with. The size of the house is pretty irrelevant. In fact the only way it would be relevant was if it was a small one person cottage he built. Then the cost per person would increase. As for damaging to the environment, most houses are damaging to the environment. I dont believe the amount of damage caused increases significantly as the size increases.

this country cannot afford to offer proper services if houses are just
built anywhere in a random fashion.
a family needs schools ,services etc no man is an island.

Again, absolutely correct, planning laws need to be in place, but they have gotten a bit ridiculous in recent years. The planning application should be the location of the building, the dimensions, and the general style of the house. Planning regulations that the distance from the stairs to the door must be a certain amount, and kitchen windows can be no taller than the height of the youngest child(slight exageration) are silly and needless, and when laws are silly and needless people give them less respect, and the people who implement them even less respect.

syklops

skywalker_208 wrote: »

If he was allowed get away with this what is to stop anyone building any house they want anywhere they want?
Examples have to be made to show planning permission means just that... getting PERMISSION

Look around you! People have been building houses anywhere they want. A few brown envelopes are all it takes. the planning laws in Ireland are ridiculous, and the planning authority corrupt.

bernardo mac

Get to know a number of councillors[usually FF/FG]is still a means to a building end

pandadonn

I have to say I do feel sorry for them but hey thats the sad country we live in the w*****s that have caused us all to work twice as hard to live than we had to two/three years ago are lieing on a beach in spain probably, knowing they will never have to answer or pay for the state of the country yet some twat in a wig can do this. having said that I cannot see how he was able to get away with it as we got planning for a small conversion at our home and it was inspected twice during building, so maybe there is more to this story!!!!

baldbear

A 3 year jail sentence with a bit suspended and let him keep the house,

supermonkey

Sykk wrote: »

I love how this thread turned from sympathy to envy when the picture was posted.

:pac:

You must have plenty of money from the goats that go over your bridge.

ricman

I PRESUME he built it did not tell the council, no inspection needed,
perhaps he thought no one would notice a 6000sq ft house.Tis very discreet, he should have grown a large hedge in front .
i can t have sympathy for someone who spends 300k plus building an illlegal structure .

supermonkey

Stinicker wrote: »

The hatred and begrudgery of anything remotely successful in this country is beyond disgusting, I wish all the hippies on here would just feck off into the mountains and live in tents because they are not living in the real world.

He's not successful he's broke. He's a loser. He was never rich only badword rich.

supermonkey

Stinicker wrote: »

if you got it flaunt it as far as I am concerned.

He's broke dumb5hit.

jam_mac_jam

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Yes we should just build where ever the hell we like.

all he built was a house, should be exemptions on the design and looser restrictions on the size of homes

we have some of the smallest crappy houses in the developed world FACT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8201900.stm
http://www.demographia.com/db-intlhouse.htm

http://www.finfacts.com/irishfinancenews/article_10004604.shtml
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1016135.shtml

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

Stupid, backwards system encourages smaller kips of houses, dormer bungalows spread across the land and lego block estates

Stinicker

supermonkey wrote: »

He's not successful he's broke. He's a loser. He was never rich only badword rich.

How do you know this? Do you know this guy personally? Or is it sheer conjecture because it said in the newstory he was out of work for two years? For all we know he could be a multi millionaire and it is fairly obvious the guy is quite well off because if he built the house with debt and is now out of work for two years (which is stated) then I am sure they couldn't care what happens as the house would probably be going for foreclosure by now and why bother spending even more thousands on legal fees fighting the case, going to the High Court ain't cheap you know.

You sound like a typical begrudger who is taking great satisfaction at watching someone lose something that you may never have, no different to a scumbag who keys someones shiny new BMW just becuase they can afford it to begin with.

starbelgrade

skywalker_208 wrote: »

ESB do not ask for planning details. All you need to send them is your application form and a cert from your electrician.
He likely has his own well and sewerage system so didnt need connecting to any local infrastructure.

He didn't have his own well, or sewerage system, which is part of the problem - the oversized house is a drain (excuse the pun) on the shared services of the local residents.

dr.bollocko

supermonkey wrote: »

He's broke dumb5hit.

Posting permission revoked.

Lu Tze

starbelgrade wrote: »

He didn't have his own well, or sewerage system, which is part of the problem - the oversized house is a drain (excuse the pun) on the shared services of the local residents.

How so?

starbelgrade

Stinicker wrote: »

You sound like a typical begrudger who is taking great satisfaction at watching someone lose something that you may never have, no different to a scumbag who keys someones shiny new BMW just becuase they can afford it to begin with.

That's a very poor analogy. A more accurate one would be to compare the guy who built an illegal structure to the guy who keys a car, as both are lawbreakers who think they can do what they like, when they like & where they like.

Respecting the law is not begrudgery. Even you know that.

starbelgrade

Lu Tze wrote: »

How so?

One of the reasons why he was refused permission in the first place, according to the article;

In May 2007, the council refused retention permission on grounds it would result in excessive density of development and excessive concentration of waste water treatment systems in an unserviced rural area,

Stinicker

starbelgrade wrote: »

That's a very poor analogy. A more accurate one would be to compare the guy who built an illegal structure to the guy who keys a car, as both are lawbreakers who think they can do what they like, when they like & where they like.

Respecting the law is not begrudgery. Even you know that.

The laws stands for everybody equally, however people are just loving this to see a guy "being brought down to earth" wheras there would be outrage if it was single mother with a tiny house. The correct term for this inane thinking is actually reverse snobbery, but begrudgery is at the root of it all.

Lu Tze

starbelgrade wrote: »

One of the reasons why he was refused permission in the first place, according to the article;

They are fairly blinded with whats possible with reed beds etc. the effluent would be clean leaving his premises. What a joke of a refusal.

The councils have taken against one of housing for the last 15 years or so, making it extremely difficult to get planning (2 of my brothers and one sister have built houses at home).

They are still pushing large developments, even when they don't seem to work.

starbelgrade

Stinicker wrote: »

The laws stands for everybody equally, however people are just loving this to see a guy "being brought down to earth" wheras there would be outrage if it was single mother with a tiny house. The correct term for this inane thinking is actually reverse snobbery, but begrudgery is at the root of it all.

I wouldn't have any sympathy for anybody who builds a house illegally & expects to get away with. It's not like there are, or were, no other options but to do so.

I don't care if this guy is a billionaire, or a single parent on benefits. I don't suffer from snobbery in any form, be it snobbery or reverse snobbery, and I don't think that people should be treated differently because of their bank balances, unlike yourself....

Stinicker wrote: »

people with money should be treated differently.

Lizzzard

Don't feel one bit sorry for him or his wife.

My folks have been trying to get planning permission for the last 4 years and are still waiting. Lets say they get permission for something other than what they had planned, and then they go off and built what they originally planned. This would be AGAINST THE LAW, and would allow the courts, if deemed necessary, to demolish the house without my folks being able to do anything about it. It would be completely their fault. Luckily my folks aren't stupid like this chap.

"It was “in desperation” they decided to proceed and build the house and their only motive was to secure a safe and nice place in which to bring up their children."
They also knew that they were putting their entire family at risk of being homeless by building this, knowing it could be taken off them, or as this has turned out, having to demolish their home.


One word for Michael and Rose Murray, idiots!

walshb

I read about this, and have to say, who the **** was advising or NOT advising these people? It's hard to be all that sympathetic with them, but they are still people who
are now faced with major problems, so for that I would sympathise with them.

Even the judge saw how difficult it was for them. However, he also made it clear that
this wasn't a minor breach, but a flagrant breach of the planning laws.

Stunning home too; damn shame, but how they ever thought they'd get
away with this defies belief.

starbelgrade

walshb wrote: »

I read about this, and have to say, who the **** was advising or NOT advising these people?

Their architects, I would imagine. I would also put money on it that they were advised strongly not to go ahead with the build.

walshb

The Davestator wrote: »

I dont understand how you can have zero sympathy for a family having to demolish their home?

Yes, he was stupid, but a sizeable charity donation or community service would serve more purpose than the cost of knocking it down etc.

There's far bigger crooks in this counrty than this fella who are getting away with a lot worse...

I see your point, but the laws are there for a very very good reason, and they cannot
be seen to be laws that will be bypassed, laughed at etc. It's tough, but the judge had
no option here.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

all he built was a house, should be exemptions on the design and looser restrictions on the size of homes

we have some of the smallest crappy houses in the developed world FACT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8201900.stm
http://www.demographia.com/db-intlhouse.htm

http://www.finfacts.com/irishfinancenews/article_10004604.shtml
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1016135.shtml



Stupid, backwards system encourages smaller kips of houses, dormer bungalows spread across the land and lego block estates

The house is 6,500 sq. ft.

Those figures would be skewed by box sized apartments and tiny 3/4 bed semis built during the bubble.

walshb

starbelgrade wrote: »

Their architects, I would imagine. I would also put money on it that they were advised strongly not to go ahead with the build.

Yeah, I reckon this was more arrogance than ignorance to be honest.
Seriously, I know there are some dodgy lawyers out there, but it
would take a real ****ing dummy to advise these people to go ahead after
what happened with the first half sized property.

ejmaztec

The guy must know the planning laws inside out at this stage, Judging by the amount of refusals he's had on the planning applications on this link, which shows probably more than one Michael Murray.

Perhaps he got so pissed off not getting his own way, he decided to go for broke, and thought "fuck the consequences".

http://www.meath.ie/ePlan41/SearchResults.aspx

walshb

ejmaztec wrote: »

The guy must know the planning laws inside out at this stage, Judging by the amount of refusals he's had on the planning applications on this link, which shows probably more than one Michael Murray.

Perhaps he got so pissed off not getting his own way, he decided to go for broke, and thought "fuck the consequences".

http://www.meath.ie/ePlan41/SearchResults.aspx

He should have got Pamela Izewayu' on the case, I am sure she would have got
this thing dragged on for years, eventually leading to them keeping the house

saltandpepper10

just to clarify a few facts about the builder of this house as i know him fairly well.he has not yet reached 40 but made a serious amount of money from sheer hard work over a 20 year period which i think should be applauded.for the record i would say he still has a few quid[none of my buisiness]it was built to the highest standards way above building regs of 05/06 he has done wrong which he knows himself but mark my words he will rise again from this temperery setback and will never need social housing .

ejmaztec

saltandpepper10 wrote: »

just to clarify a few facts about the builder of this house as i know him fairly well.he has not yet reached 40 but made a serious amount of money from sheer hard work over a 20 year period which i think should be applauded.for the record i would say he still has a few quid[none of my buisiness]it was built to the highest standards way above building regs of 05/06 he has done wrong which he knows himself but mark my words he will rise again from this temperery setback and will never need social housing .

:eek:

Lizzzard

saltandpepper10 wrote: »

just to clarify a few facts about the builder of this house.he has not yet reached 40 but made a serious amount of money from sheer hard work over a 20 year period which i think should be applauded. it was built to the highest standards way above building regs of 05/06 he has done wrong which he knows himself.

I don't think anyone is going to be applauding this guy seeing as he knowingly built a house on grounds which didn't have planning permission for what he was building.
That's called not doing your job right, maybe it's breaking the law too, but he already knew that he was doing a dodgy deed here like you said, right?

Also, how many other dodgy deeds has this guy done over his 20 years of
"sheer hard work" to earn his "serious amount of money"?

I don't think it matters what standards he built this house to either, what was done was AGAINST THE LAW!!!!

changes

I have a tiny bit of sympathy but not much.

He should have to knock it - building it twice the size was the killer... i'd love to have seen the judges face when he found out the man built it twice the size.

Its one thing building a foot or 2 too high or building a metre forward or back but to build a house when it was refused and even worse to build it twice the size is madness.

If this house isn't knocked then why even bother going for planning.

Run_to_da_hills

Will the state "play around" with this guy in future? Whats the chances of him getting planning if he intends apply legitimately?

He has a hell of a lot of salvageable materials that could be used in a future development that would otherwise be be worth little or nothing to anyone else.

walshb

saltandpepper10 wrote: »

who would go in and knock this house?they would want to be very stuck for a days wages.i live not too far away from this house and my own belief is it will never be demolished,he locals will do everything in there power to frustrate demolition work commencing

You underestimate the power of the courts, the land and the people. This will be demolished, and rightly so. What next, anarchy because they didn't get their way?

No matter what frustrations they MAY encounter, it will be met with and dealt with by
the law.

mikemac

Seems an awful same to knock it.

Could Meath Co. Council maybe make an offer to buy it cost price and split into flats for social housing? You could fit a few families there. Meath has a long waiting list as do most counties.
You could probably split the house up, the owner gets their money back and it's not demolished.

Most won't go with this idea I suppose