Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

Darc19

As above, the refusal is "local need"

Three applications were refused where I live and all three were born and bred on the immediate land.

But none work in the immediate area or farm in the area so did not get planning.

Houses were normal sized and similar design to others.

listermint

paul71 wrote: »

Not to the extent that people in towns villages and cities subsidise rural 1 off builds. No thank I won't sit down, I dont have head up my arse and my cornflakes where not pissed in. Personal abuse is simply an admission that people are in denial of very obvious facts.

Personal abuse..... ?


That's a bit well... Where do I start. When you tell someone they have their head up their arse I think you'll find you lost the battle. Absolute whining...

Tiger20

[quote="Donald Trump;114230382"



"You were not refused because you were not a local. You were refused because you could not show a "local need".


Sorry, but you are incorrect. I was subsequently approved for planning. This is because, through researching other applications made after my first application, I discovered a number of applications which were granted planning, despite being in areas that had a stricter zoning criteria. By highlighting this, I argued that their interpretation of my first application was incorrect.

The details of my successful application were identical to my first, in that nothing had changed in my circumstances, house design etc, so the "need" remained unchanged. In granting me planning the council were acknowledging that they were incorrect,(they didn't actually say this, but their decision was acknowledgement in itself).

That is the problem I have, the lazy, inconsistent, different criteria applied by those who should be above this sort of thing. One thing I will acknowledgement is that I notice there seems to be a marked improvement in the analysis and decision making recently, but how consistent this is, I cannot say.

(Hope you like the paragraphs!)
.

cnocbui

paul71 wrote: »

The Village of Sumerhill...
The poles and cables are serviced 3 to 4 times a year. ...
I dont have a chip on my shoulder. I am presenting simple plain fact. Those facts do not suit the agenda of people planners/politicians/owners who decided to blight our economy and landscape with an unsustainable settlement pattern.

Why does not suit them, because they realise that they are being subsidised by the rest of society.

Since you are claiming simple plain fact, provide some proof of that. As it's complete nonsense, I won't be holding my breath.

The vast majority of one-off houses simply connect to existing infrastructure, and pay for such connection. The infrastructure exists because of farms. My house, and others, do not cause the need or provisioning of services, it's the farms that do that. The infrastructure existed and was in place before there were one-off houses. If the one off houses had never been built the cost of the supporting infrastructure would still be there because the farms would still exist to require it.

Mellor

Donald Trump wrote: »

The council should not be bulldozing it unless they plan on sending the owners the bill afterwards. The owners were told to do it, so if they don't it should be a simple visit to the court to have them declared in contempt.

If the council bulldozed it and sent them a bill, they'd be legally within their rights to laugh at the bill and say thanks for sorting that.
I imagine on some level the Murrarys are hoping it will be paid for.

I'm not saying the correct legal recourse doesn't exist. I'm saying it's not an overnight process.

StackSteevens wrote: »

My expectation would have been that, very soon after the Supreme Court's deadline had expired, Meath County Council would have applied to the High Court to have Murray jailed for contempt of court.


Edit - here's a link to a story about another genius who disregarded a Court Order. The woman spent over 100 days in jail before it dawned on her that ignoring a Court directive isn't the wisest course of action. If Meath Co Co had gone to court two years ago, then by now either Murray would be living in a mobile home or he'd still be in prison.

Notice the dates. The judgement was in 2011. She was jailed in 2017.
If Murray continues to refuse he will go to jail. But it's not an overnight thing, and there are other lines worth pursuing first.

rn

paul71 wrote: »

The Village of Sumerhill has 150 to 250 households, the 8km radius around the village probably has in excess of 400 households. The village has it electricity supply serviced by a few dozen kms of cabling. The surrounding rural area is serviced by several thousand kilometers. The poles and cables are serviced 3 to 4 times a year. The cost of supply to village compared to the rural areas is therefore a factor of the lenght of the network divided by the number of customers. Maths for 9 year I would suggest. This is repeated in every village in Meath and the same formula applies to all services.

I dont have a chip on my shoulder. I am presenting simple plain fact. Those facts do not suit the agenda of people planners/politicians/owners who decided to blight our economy and landscape with an unsustainable settlement pattern.

Why does not suit them, because they realise that they are being subsidised by the rest of society.

The problem is your "facts" don't stack up. What's this servicing you outline. It's not engines we're talking about. I've plenty of esb network infrastructure on my land. Have only seen them do periodic pole inspections and only see big crews when it's a repair job. Which is very, very rare and not 4 times per year. Again I pay a rural rate for my supply. That's higher than my urban rate. That would cover inspection and repair every 20 years.

You don't really subsidise the rural dweller. We pay for everything ourselves, generally through higher service costs.

Ribbon development is proving unsustainable alright from a ground water point of view and a water point of view. But that's another story.

JimmyVik

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I have a huge long garden with a lane at the back. Still cannot get permission to build a habitable space with separate entrance. It would be like a mews house. NOPE. OK in Terenure and Rathgar though.

Not too worried at all, but looking at this, I could become pis sed off, but they must have friends in high places. Only thing I can think of now.

A guy I work with put one of these (well something like it) up with the door facing his back patio doors about 6 feet away.


https://www.gardenrooms.ie/gallery/#


He then built a walkway, insulated and all joined from the house to the cabin.
From the pictures he showed me its just like a short 6 foot wide hall from the living room into the garden room. Looks lovely. And he has a new patio door to the garden coming off this "hall".
He did that because it cost him about €8K for tha garden room and €2K to get the "hall built", and he got no planning permission.


I have a fascination with these kinf o building projects. I love hearing about them. Great threads on boards where guys have documented their entire build.

Donald Trump

Tiger20 wrote: »

Donald Trump wrote: »

"You were not refused because you were not a local. You were refused because you could not show a "local need".

Sorry, but you are incorrect. I was subsequently approved for planning. This is because, through researching other applications made after my first application, I discovered a number of applications which were granted planning, despite being in areas that had a stricter zoning criteria. By highlighting this, I argued that their interpretation of my first application was incorrect.

The details of my successful application were identical to my first, in that nothing had changed in my circumstances, house design etc, so the "need" remained unchanged. In granting me planning the council were acknowledging that they were incorrect,(they didn't actually say this, but their decision was acknowledgement in itself).

That is the problem I have, the lazy, inconsistent, different criteria applied by those who should be above this sort of thing. One thing I will acknowledgement is that I notice there seems to be a marked improvement in the analysis and decision making recently, but how consistent this is, I cannot say.

(Hope you like the paragraphs!)
.

That does not make logical sense.


You say that you were were refused since you were not a local. That was the only thing. Yet you were able to argue against that. So either you were able to prove that you were "a local" or your council did away with this requirement (which would have made headline news to be fair as it would have opened the floodgates)


At least for the last few years, personal details in applications are not available online as a result of GPDR. So you can't go in a see a person's proof of personal things such as their connections to the locality.

AndrewJRenko

rn wrote: »

You don't really subsidise the rural dweller. We pay for everything ourselves, generally through higher service costs.

Ribbon development is proving unsustainable alright from a ground water point of view and a water point of view. But that's another story.

It's also unsustainable from a transport point of view. It creates a car-bound culture, where every shopping trip, every family trip, every play date, every school run, every football training HAS to be done by private car, with no other option available. That in turn creates a huge imposition on enabling car transport. It results in towns and villages dying off completely, as most shopping is done in the out-of-town retail park, not the local shops.

Donald Trump

paul71 wrote: »

The poles and cables are serviced 3 to 4 times a year.

The only pole that I'd want to be servicing a few times a year is the young wan that works behind to counter in the shop down the road.



"Local needs" sez you

cnocbui

JimmyVik wrote: »

A guy I work with put one of these (well something like it) up with the door facing his back patio doors about 6 feet away.


https://www.gardenrooms.ie/gallery/#


He then built a walkway, insulated and all joined from the house to the cabin.
From the pictures he showed me its just like a short 6 foot wide hall from the living room into the garden room. Looks lovely. And he has a new patio door to the garden coming off this "hall".
He did that because it cost him about €8K for tha garden room and €2K to get the "hall built", and he got no planning permission.

I have a fascination with these kinf o building projects. I love hearing about them. Great threads on boards where guys have documented their entire build.

I built something along those lines 12 years ago and used Sikkens wood preservative on it and it's not holding up too well against the sodden onslaught of Irish weather.

rn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's also unsustainable from a transport point of view. It creates a car-bound culture, where every shopping trip, every family trip, every play date, every school run, every football training HAS to be done by private car, with no other option available. That in turn creates a huge imposition on enabling car transport. It results in towns and villages dying off completely, as most shopping is done in the out-of-town retail park, not the local shops.

It's a good point, but correct up to a point. Prices are what's drying a lot of people to these too.

Muahahaha

rn wrote: »

You don't really subsidise the rural dweller. We pay for everything ourselves, generally through higher service costs.

Thats just simply not the case as we now know from the distribution of local property taxes. Counties like Leitrim get huge subsidies from central government to pay for maintaining infrastructure. Then as the houses arent worth much the LPT collected locally is tiny, many houses would be exempt altogether.



Im not arguing against the system, we are a republic and thats the way things are run. But if we had a federal system with every county for itself then theres counties in Ireland that would just sink overnight without the subsidies they get from urban taxpayers.

Mellor

JimmyVik wrote: »

He then built a walkway, insulated and all joined from the house to the cabin.
From the pictures he showed me its just like a short 6 foot wide hall from the living room into the garden room. Looks lovely. And he has a new patio door to the garden coming off this "hall".
He did that because it cost him about €8K for tha garden room and €2K to get the "hall built", and he got no planning permission.

Depending on sizes, he may not have needed planning.

cnocbui wrote: »

I built something along those lines 12 years ago and used Sikkens wood preservative on it and it's not holding up too well against the sodden onslaught of Irish weather.

How many times in 12 years have you retreated it?

cnocbui

Mellor wrote: »

Depending on sizes, he may not have needed planning.



How many times in 12 years have you retreated it?

At least 6-8 but more as it needs spotting annually.

sydthebeat

Muahahaha wrote: »

Im not arguing against the system, we are a republic and thats the way things are run. But if we had a federal system with every county for itself then theres counties in Ireland that would just sink overnight without the subsidies they get from urban taxpayers.

and many urban tax payers would go hungry.....

Muahahaha

sydthebeat wrote: »

and many urban tax payers would go hungry.....

not sure how that would happen. Just making the point that infrastructure in rural areas is subsidised by the taxes paid in urban areas, as it is in all countries really. There seems to be a myth on these Boards and elsewhere that rural Ireland pays its own way in terms of infrastructure, it simply doesnt and the stats bear this out.

Again Im not arguing against the system, just pointing out realities to posters who say rural Ireland pays for everything itself. It doesn't here in Ireland and it doesn't in other countries either.

skooterblue2

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I remember reading about this case in the Meath Chronicle and scouring the article looking for what their case or excuse would be. They didn't even try to come up with a plausible reason, just "We made a little mistake" and "the council want to demolish our house and make us homeless"

If you are looking to win any court case dont show up with Free Legal Aid.

Bass Reeves

Muahahaha wrote: »

not sure how that would happen. Just making the point that infrastructure in rural areas is subsidised by the taxes paid in urban areas, as it is in all countries really. There seems to be a myth on these Boards and elsewhere that rural Ireland pays its own way in terms of infrastructure, it simply doesnt and the stats bear this out.

Again Im not arguing against the system, just pointing out realities to posters who say rural Ireland pays for everything itself. It doesn't here in Ireland and it doesn't in other countries either.

This is a miss conception. Most business are based out of Dublin, there main offices and especially HR sections are based there. The taxes for people that are employed working for them down the country are paid in Dublin. As there offices are Dublin based there rates etc are all paid into Dublin local authorities. As well the vast majority of Public servants are are based in Dublin and again even though they are providing services don the country there taxes are allocated to Dublin.

So the taxes paid by the postman, eir employee, teachers, social welfare employees in leitrim may all be treated as Dublin based employee's as well as staff managing there HR side.

dubrov

Bass Reeves wrote:

This is a miss conception. Most business are based out of Dublin, there main offices and especially HR sections are based there. The taxes for people that are employed working for them down the country are paid in Dublin. As there offices are Dublin based there rates etc are all paid into Dublin local authorities. As well the vast majority of Public servants are are based in Dublin and again even though they are providing services don the country there taxes are allocated to Dublin.

Bass Reeves wrote:

So the taxes paid by the postman, eir employee, teachers, social welfare employees in leitrim may all be treated as Dublin based employee's as well as staff managing there HR side.

I think you are confusing factories with businesses.

Employees working in Dublin are part of the business.

Darc19

Is it me or has this thread gone way off subject?

L1011

rn wrote: »

You don't really subsidise the rural dweller. We pay for everything ourselves, generally through higher service costs.

That is but a tiny contribution towards the higher costs.

Bass Reeves

dubrov wrote: »

I think you are confusing factories with businesses.

Employees working in Dublin are part of the business.

But an employees based outside of Dublin but paid from Dublin has his taxes allocated as if they were paid from Dublin. Wealth from economic activity happening outside of Dublin is considered as if it is part of the economic activity of Dublin.

An example the farmers Journal the economic the economic activity of it is considered to be part of the Dublin area but it is entirely dependent on farming activity, whether in sales or ad revenue. You have exactly the same issue with car, truck, tractor and machinery importers as well as there parts virtually all are based in Dublin but a large amount of the economic activity comes from outside Dublin.

Kaybaykwah

JimmyVik wrote: »

A guy I work with put one of these (well something like it) up with the door facing his back patio doors about 6 feet away.


https://www.gardenrooms.ie/gallery/#


He then built a walkway, insulated and all joined from the house to the cabin.
From the pictures he showed me its just like a short 6 foot wide hall from the living room into the garden room. Looks lovely. And he has a new patio door to the garden coming off this "hall".
He did that because it cost him about €8K for tha garden room and €2K to get the "hall built", and he got no planning permission.


I have a fascination with these kinf o building projects. I love hearing about them. Great threads on boards where guys have documented their entire build.

Only problem is that when you sell the house and a surveyor draws up a Location plan, there will be a discrepancy with what was there before.

If you get a permit for a relatively small project like that, you will have things in order. I think it is better to get approval, and even getting a check from an inspector when finished than an order for removal.

dubrov

Bass Reeves wrote:

But an employees based outside of Dublin but paid from Dublin has his taxes allocated as if they were paid from Dublin. Wealth from economic activity happening outside of Dublin is considered as if it is part of the economic activity of Dublin.

Your income tax allocation is based on your home address.
Corporation tax is based on the company's address. It makes little sense for a company to register in Dublin if the large proportion of the business is somewhere else.

Forgive me if I don't take the farmers journal as an independent source in this matter.

kingbhome

Bullocks wrote: »

Are you sure you can get a 28' ESB pole for €100? I seriously doubt it

Donedeal new poles 100e each. What is it makes you doubt it

Bass Reeves

dubrov wrote: »

Your income tax allocation is based on your home address.
Corporation tax is based on the company's address. It makes little sense for a company to register in Dublin if the large proportion of the business is somewhere else.

Forgive me if I don't take the farmers journal as an independent source in this matter.

I am not taking the farmers jornal as a souurce. I think you did not read my post. The coporation tax of the FJ is paid to its business address in Bluebell in Dublin as is it rates and other taxes. However all its economic activity is where it raises its money is outside of Dublin.

So all the cars importers based in Dublin sell the majority of there cars to Dublin dealers. car registerations tell us a different story. the majority of companies that provide nationwide services have there HQ's Dublin every telecoms company eir, sky vodaphone etc, the ESB, white goods importers, machinery importers etc etc. The economic activity generates is less than 50% dublin based.

JimmyVik

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

Only problem is that when you sell the house and a surveyor draws up a Location plan, there will be a discrepancy with what was there before.

If you get a permit for a relatively small project like that, you will have things in order. I think it is better to get approval, and even getting a check from an inspector when finished than an order for removal.

If they ever move they would probablyjust knock down the hall part.
Probably could take the now freestanding garden room with them if they wanted too.

Mellor

Bass Reeves wrote: »

This is a miss conception. Most business are based out of Dublin, there main offices and especially HR sections are based there. The taxes for people that are employed working for them down the country are paid in Dublin.

That's incorrect.
Tax is registered against your home address. Somebody living down the country working for a company with a HQ in dublin, his tax is registered against his home addresses.

If anything, Dublin is under represented due to the amount of people commuting to Dublin everyday from outside the county.

So the taxes paid by the postman, eir employee, teachers, social welfare employees in leitrim may all be treated as Dublin based employee's as well as staff managing there HR side.

Again, incorrect. The postman in Leitrim likely lives in Leitrim.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I am not taking the farmers jornal as a souurce. I think you did not read my post. The coporation tax of the FJ is paid to its business address in Bluebell in Dublin as is it rates and other taxes. However all its economic activity is where it raises its money is outside of Dublin.

This is a completely different point to what you are saying before.

But where a company generates it's revenue from is unrelated to where it conducts business.
Somebody could in Leitrim runs a distillery and sells Gin all over the country. The fact their revenue comes from all over is irrelevant, they operate in Leitrim

So all the cars importers based in Dublin sell the majority of there cars to Dublin dealers. car registerations tell us a different story. the majority of companies that provide nationwide services have there HQ's Dublin every telecoms company eir, sky vodaphone etc, the ESB, white goods importers, machinery importers etc etc. The economic activity generates is less than 50% dublin based.

The fact their customers come fro mall over is irrelevant. The work is undertaken in dublin.
I've no idea what point you are tryign to make here. But you've got a very special brand of begrudgery there.

Mellor

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

Only problem is that when you sell the house and a surveyor draws up a Location plan, there will be a discrepancy with what was there before.

If you get a permit for a relatively small project like that, you will have things in order. I think it is better to get approval, and even getting a check from an inspector when finished than an order for removal.

You don't need a survey done when selling. And they certainly don't compare it to what was there before.
Planning likely wasn't required. What you are describing isn't an issue.

JimmyVik wrote: »

If they ever move they would probably just knock down the hall part.
Probably could take the now freestanding garden room with them if they wanted too.

I doubt they'd have to knock it, from a planning perspective at least. Doesn't sound large enough to require planning. Although it may not be up to scratch in terms of building regs.