Court orders demolition of family home.

Dohnny Jepp

why does he deserve his money back?

mikemac

Ok, money back was first reaction but thinking on it, it seemed fair but it's actually way too much!
CPO it so, agricultural land values and not site values so as they do with road building.
And an average offer on construction estimates, whatever the council spend themselves when they build

The owner can take the offer and the council gets a cut-price home for housing multiple families, definitely not just one family.

Or it just gets demolished.

ricman

ITS like he made a bet, i,ll build it, it won,t go to court, they won,t get a demolition order, he lost.I see no reason to admire him, no more than someone who bets 300k, on a horse and loses, unfortunately theres no shortage of foolish reckless people out there. I Think its sad for the family.
It reminds me of a story i heard on rte,documentary about gamblers, some eejit goes to a card game on friday, comes home at 12.30 ,tells his wife and 2 kids ,we,ll have to move out tommorow , i lost the house.
HE bet the whole house on a hand of poker.
Theres a selfish idiot not thinking of his familys welfare.

walshb

But, why are we assuming it was the man who was pushing this?
Maybe, just maybe it was an intolerable wife pushing this build...

starbelgrade

walshb wrote: »

But, why are we assuming it was the man who was pushing this?
Maybe, just maybe it was an intolerable wife pushing this build...

There had to be two of them behind the decision. A wife might nag you to go & put the bins out or go to the shop for some bread & milk, but I seriously doubt that she kept saying to him, " I want a house & I want it NOW", up to the point where he said - as you do when you're about to put the bins out - "OK, I'll do it NOW, if it'll shut you up!"

walshb

starbelgrade wrote: »

There had to be two of them behind the decision. A wife might nag you to go & put the bins out or go to the shop for some bread & milk, but I seriously doubt that she kept saying to him, " I want a house & I want it NOW", up to the point where he said - as you do when you're about to put the bins out - "OK, I'll do it NOW, if it'll shut you up!"

Yes, two of them in it is being fair and diplomatic; it is just that most here seem to be
mentioning him him him him......Hey, a nagging wife can be real hell
to live with.

mikemac

ricman wrote: »

It reminds me of a story i heard on rte,documentary about gamblers, some eejit goes to a card game on friday, comes home at 12.30 ,tells his wife and 2 kids ,we,ll have to move out tommorow , i lost the house.
HE bet the whole house on a hand of poker.
Theres a selfish idiot not thinking of his familys welfare.

Gambling debts aren't enforceble and no family ever moved out if the house was bet on a game on cards.
Unless this guy was betting with the mafia :eek:

ricman

Sounds like you are saying theres 2 fools involved here, i just presumed it was the man saying i want a big gaff and feck the begrudgers.
i think theres a code of honor among professional gamblers, nothing to do with the mafia,you make a bet, you honor it.

loobylou

walshb wrote: »

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

Dunno.... 24 months is'nt a bad start.:p

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

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.

yeah exactly my point. We should have bigger houses and 6,000 sq ft + is a good thing not a bad thing who are you to tell someone else they wont use something?

walshb

loobylou wrote: »

Dunno.... 24 months is'nt a bad start.:p

Not to mention the fact that they have been living there since 2006? 4 year start...:)

Mike 1972

baldbear wrote: »

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

So people who break the law should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crimes ?

Mike 1972

Mike 1972 wrote: »

So people who break the law should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crimes ?

the family didnt steal anything

your confusing civil law with criminal law they did not rob and bank and keep the money

cazzycaz

A big gamble but i know people who have built big swanky houses without permission and gone for retention and got it. Seems to be one law for some and another law for others. Will be interesting to see what happens in two years time...something will save it i suspect.

Mike 1972

Deleted User wrote: »

your confusing civil law with criminal law

Nowhere did I specify civil or criminal law

danbohan

Mike 1972 wrote: »

So people who break the law should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crimes ?

how could we forget , been rich in ireland is a crime , dont you just love it

cazzycaz

cazzycaz wrote: »

A big gamble but i know people who have built big swanky houses without permission and gone for retention and got it. Seems to be one law for some and another law for others. Will be interesting to see what happens in two years time...something will save it i suspect.

That begs the question, should rentention be abolished due to the abuse?

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

yeah exactly my point. We should have bigger houses and 6,000 sq ft + is a good thing not a bad thing who are you to tell someone else they wont use something?

Whatever, I'm sure he thought he could afford it. It worked out well for him in the end. Build it and they will come and all that.

Wonder did he read The Secret?

Mike 1972

danbohan wrote: »

how could we forget , been rich in ireland is a crime , dont you just love it

Unemployed plumber = rich ?

ricman

Google sites for sale county meath, theres a big difference between a site x and a site that has outline planning permission for a house.A house needs acess to esb, water supply etc do you think it costs the council zero to provide services to houses.
WE need planning regulations otherwise we,d have chaos plus massive environmental damage to the water supply.And theres plenty of legal sites for sale in meath or old houses that need modernisation.
if he had built an 800 sq ft house ,he might had a chance of going for retention or some sort of compromise with the council.

El Weirdo

danbohan wrote: »

how could we forget , been rich in ireland is a crime , dont you just love it

No. Being rich in Ireland is not a crime but thinking that the laws don't apply to you because you are rich is fucking retarded and I'm glad to see that this guy didn't get away with it.

ricman

i could go to my aunt and build a shack on her land with old bricks,recycled wood from buynsell ETC ,would not cost much ,it would still be against the law ,i have no planning permission.being rich he was able to build a large house,thats a side issue.

danbohan

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Unemployed plumber = rich ?

well if an unemployed plumber can build this mortgage free i wonder what an employed one could do , always said sw rates are too high in ireland !

Mike 1972

He wasnt unemployed when he built it

Do pay attention FFS

K-9

danbohan wrote: »

well if an unemployed plumber can build this mortgage free i wonder what an employed one could do , always said sw rates are too high in ireland !

Oh Good God of almighty.

He was employed, he is now unemployed.

ricman

ricman wrote: »

Google sites for sale county meath, theres a big difference between a site x and a site that has outline planning permission for a house.A house needs acess to esb, water supply etc do you think it costs the council zero to provide services to houses.
WE need planning regulations otherwise we,d have chaos plus massive environmental damage to the water supply.And theres plenty of legal sites for sale in meath or old houses that need modernisation.
if he had built an 800 sq ft house ,he might had a chance of going for retention or some sort of compromise with the council.

who wants an 800 sq ft house on land? are ya mad thats apartment size stuff

Mike 1972

Deleted User wrote: »

who wants an 800 sq ft house on land?

What are these "feet" you speak of ?

Butch Cassidy

K-9 wrote: »

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.

Well it's ok for the Buttler brothers to give payments to certain politicians. They settled some €20odd million with revenue and weren't pursued. They perjured themselves in a tribunal and weren't prosecuted. There's many like them. White collar crime is not prosecuted in this country.

starbelgrade wrote: »

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.

.

I was making a point about our mentality in our society. About how it's fair and accepted to demolish a building that could be used for the betterment of people in need. Is there not just something grotesque in this notion of "justice" here?

Doop wrote: »

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.

Take the house away from them absolutely. Then when the state owns it the state can do soemthing usefull with it.

tbh wrote: »

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

Touché

K-9

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

Well it's ok for the Buttler brothers to give payments to certain politicians. They settled some €20odd million with revenue and weren't pursued. They perjured themselves in a tribunal and weren't prosecuted. There's many like them. White collar crime is not prosecuted in this country.

True, but one thing at a time. There is a perception out there among many that you build away, even without planning and just apply for retention after. Problem sorted. That needs to end, otherwise why have planning at all?

I suppose it could be used for something else, except there is no planning for it. It shouldn't exist. The man owns the house, so the Council or whoever would need to buy it of him.

So you'd have the Council buying a house that has no planning. It's an Irish solution to an Irish problem alright!

starbelgrade

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

I was making a point about our mentality in our society. About how it's fair and accepted to demolish a building that could be used for the betterment of people in need. Is there not just something grotesque in this notion of "justice" here?



Take the house away from them absolutely. Then when the state owns it the state can do soemthing usefull with it.

Let me get this straight.... you take a house that is unsuitable for the services in the area, out of character, oversized & illegally built... you tell the owner that he can't live in it & has to move out, you pay him compensation for his troubles, and then, you give it to the "needy"?

Is that right, Ted?

God, that justice thing is madness.

cournioni

It's almost impossible to get planning permission for a house in the countryside these days and is getting worse. I know a couple who looked for planning permission on their family's land which had been in the family for generations and were refused. Fcuking government want everybody to live in towns nowadays which is something I would absolutely detest.

moonpurple

well done court

ricman

AS i posted already, if you have the money you can buy an old house and extend,or modernise it,get one that has a connection to the esb network .And you can save alot of money if you know basic diy.

seamus

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

I was making a point about our mentality in our society. About how it's fair and accepted to demolish a building that could be used for the betterment of people in need. Is there not just something grotesque in this notion of "justice" here?

No. The land is his. You can't just move people onto his land.

By the same token, allowing the building to remain and having him pay a fine would open the door for people to avoid the entire planning process and just go ahead and pay a fine at the end.

The building has to be knocked because to do otherwise would make the entire planning process defunct and laughable. It would mean that anyone can build whatever the hell they like provided that they have the money to pay a court fine.

I agree that the planning process in many rural areas is needlessly strict and generally suffers from corruption, cronyism and nimbyism, but that doesn't give anyone the right to ignore it.

Motley Crue

Sulmac wrote: »

Level of sympathy = zero.

While I do agree that they could not have expected to be treated any other way, it does seem unfair to knock their house down and not at least offer them accommodation elsewhere. But then if they did that a lot of other people would then build houses without planning permission to have them knocked them so they could live somewhere else....I dunno, perhaps he was an idiot to pursue his line of thought.

He obviously built the house himself - I assume any building contractor would ask to see planning permission as a general rule before work is undertaken

There was a scene in the movie 'The General' - I'm not sure how historically accurate it is, where Martin Cahill camps in the ruins of his former estate until the Minister arrives and offers him, begrudgingly, a new flat. Nobody can physically remove him from the land, thus constituting assault, so maybe he should try that and he could get a new property or compensation out of it.

DisForDerek

The state? Do something useful?

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

Take the house away from them absolutely. Then when the state owns it the state can do soemthing usefull with it.



Touché

planetX

ugliest house I've ever seen - deserves to be demolished with or without the legal problems.

Noreen1

I think the couple were unwise to build a house without planning permission.
Having said that, planning laws in this country are beyond a joke, at this stage.

I know of several people who have been refused permission to build perfectly ordinary, aesthetically suitable houses on land that their families have owned for generations - just because they can be seen from a so-called "scenic route"!!

The fact that tourists are scarcer than hens teeth in the area - not to mention that the average tourist couldn't find their way onto said "scenic route" unless they were led by the hand - seems to have escaped the notice of the planners entirely!
So we now have a situation where people who own farms of land cannot build their residence on said farms (hence have to use cars to travel back and forth to their place of work at lunchtime etc.) - just in case some tourist finds same country lane, and decides to take a stroll at some point in the future........... Bl**dy ridiculous IMHO.
I remember being totally frustrated at the ridiculous planning laws when I built my home 10 years ago. (You have to build where it can't be seen from the main road? White exterior, black rooftiles - I mean, seriously, did they think I was going to paint the thing bright pink, with purple stripes, and maybe throw in a luminous green roof FFS?)

Noreen

ricman

Would it not be possible to build a new bungalow behind the old farmhouse ,where it would be hidden from the road , perhaps grow a hedge facing the main road to block the view of any wandering tourist.

bernardo mac

But build what you like where you like in Co.Wexford. and County Council leads by example

meditraitor

If I am reading this right,

the guy applied for planning permission to build a house on his own land and was refused (bit harsh) but then proceeds to build a house even after planning refusal (dumb) and not only does he build it but he builds one twice the size of the original application (arrogant/petulant).


2c
The planning laws are an ass but some people are even bigger asses,

mikemac

There is a lot of disparity between councils.

Tipperary North are incredibly strict about one off housing. People own land for generations and they can't get permission for a site for a son or daughter.
If you want to build overlooking Lough Derg then forget about it, it's on a scenic route, Lough Derg Way. Well you can try but it's as good as throwing away your application fee

Cross the Shannon to Co. Clare and it's the very definition of bungalow blitz and bad planning!

Why the difference?
The solution is there somewhere in the middle but no county is perfect.

Tipp North have a development plan and they want people in estates in the nearest town where it's easier for them to provide services.
Fair enough but sometimes it's taken too far, I can't speak for Meath where this case happened

Noreen1

ricman wrote: »

Would it not be possible to build a new bungalow behind the old farmhouse ,where it would be hidden from the road , perhaps grow a hedge facing the main road to block the view of any wandering tourist.

Nope! Because then it could be seen from the main road (about two miles away, as the crow flies!). God forbid that any tourist should get the idea that anyone actually lives in rural Ireland - unless they live in thatched cottages, and dress like leprechauns, that is. Planning policy now appears to be geared toward forcing people to live on housing estates, unfortunate as that may be.

Noreen

Butch Cassidy

Motley Crue wrote: »

There was a scene in the movie 'The General' - I'm not sure how historically accurate it is, where Martin Cahill camps in the ruins of his former estate until the Minister arrives and offers him, begrudgingly, a new flat. Nobody can physically remove him from the land, thus constituting assault, so maybe he should try that and he could get a new property or compensation out of it.

A family in Loughlinstown was evicted by the council there with the help of the riot police. The full power of the state is used when it suits them. When the Johnny Ronans of this world how a few hundred million then it's our problem of course. No chance of the likes of him being dealth with.

Cahill's story is fairly standard as far as I know where someone wants to hold out for better acommodation.

reprazant

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

A family in Loughlinstown was evicted by the council there with the help of the riot police. The full power of the state is used when it suits them. When the Johnny Ronans of this world how a few hundred million then it's our problem of course. No chance of the likes of him being dealth with.

Cahill's story is fairly standard as far as I know where someone wants to hold out for better acommodation.

The family in Loughlinstown were evicted because they owed over €10,000 in rent arrears to the council.

I have no sympathy for them either. Their rent was €100 a week & there was 4 adults living in the house.

How the hell do you work up that amount in arrears?

Kimono-Girl

cournioni wrote: »

It's almost impossible to get planning permission for a house in the countryside these days and is getting worse. I know a couple who looked for planning permission on their family's land which had been in the family for generations and were refused. Fcuking government want everybody to live in towns nowadays which is something I would absolutely detest.

tell me about it :rolleyes: Brother in law has applied 4 times already to build a (singular)house on their land and was refused over nothing each time!!!:mad:

luckily for me id rather live in an apartment in the city then a house in the country!!!

orourkeda

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Sometimes the law can be an ass.

In this case, the defendants were asses.

orourkeda

reprazant wrote: »

The family in Loughlinstown were evicted because they owed over €10,000 in rent arrears to the council.

I have no sympathy for them either. Their rent was €100 a week & there was 4 adults living in the house.

How the hell do you work up that amount in arrears?

I may be mistaken in this but there was a segment about this case on a radio proramme recently about this exact case where a number of well known public representatives in the area tried to intervene on behalf of the family. Why would they do that for a family of four adults that are 2 years in arrears on their rent

reprazant

orourkeda wrote: »

I may be mistaken in this but there was a segment about this case on a radio proramme recently about this exact case where a number of well known public representatives in the area tried to intervene on behalf of the family. Why would they do that for a family of four adults that are 2 years in arrears on their rent

To show that they care for the people of the area I guess. Nobody likes to see people get evicted.

But if you manager to that sort of arrears, something has to happen. I mean seriously, how do you manage to work up that sort of arrears and not think that something might happen?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/family-evicted-despite-plea-for-mercy-over-unpaid-rent-2181347.html

Councillor Maria Bailey said her sympathies were with the family but "nobody is evicted lightly".

She said in each case where a person runs up arrears they are given numerous opportunities to pay and the councils seeks to come to some sort of arrangement with them.

More than 4,000 people are on the council's housing waiting list.

The family, which rented the home for €100 a week, had run-up arrears of €12,500 up to last September.

Seamonster

This is what JP Mansfield has been doing for years and he seems to get away with it, that's what amazes me. He basically builds colleges, apartments, conference centers without planning permission, gets a slap on the wrist, gives the government millions in backhanders and suddenly he has permission....OK, your man built his house without permission and it deserves to be knocked down, even just to send a message out to other people not to try the same, but when politicians mates like Mansfield do it and get away with it, it shows you how corrupt our country is!

http://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/Naas-hotel-plan-granted-planning.5482413.jp

http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=25586&start=0