Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

Options
1…5681011…33

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    Biscuitus
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Biscuitus


    Wether the house gets knocked or not the long term affect is nobody in that family would get future planning permission in the area.


  • Options
    #213
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,382 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Tiger20 wrote: »
    The why part only you can answer, as it is you who suggested it in your previous post where you said "take all the sites"


    Well I suppose it comes to how you interpreted that phrase "take the sites". You interpreted to mean "seize" ownership of - which was not the intention.


    To say that the planning authorities could take those sites and grant permission/zoning to them doesn't have to mean they seize them.


  • Options
    #214
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,382 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    ronivek wrote: »
    What exactly are you arguing for here?

    That the Government should be purchasing random sites in the middle of the countryside and building bungalows for local farmers?
    :confused::confused:
    ronivek wrote: »
    Or that locals should be allowed to purchase sites and property for less than their actual value according to the free market just by virtue of the fact they're locals?


    :confused::confused:


    I'm not saying either of those things. If you got to either of those conclusions it is because you wanted to get there regardless of what I wrote.


  • Options
    #215
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    You can do that if you want. The universities would be fairly empty though........

    No, you cant because it would be unfair and illegal. It would also cause unemployment issues both immediately and in the future.

    I would have hoped any with an ounce of sense would see that.


  • Options
    #216
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,382 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    No, you cant because it would be unfair and illegal. It would also cause unemployment issues both immediately and in the future.

    I would have hoped any with an ounce of sense would see that.




    Ok. I'll rephrase

    "You can suggest that if you want. The universities would be fairly empty though........"

    It was an off-the-cuff remark because the analogy was nonsensical, as you kinda said yourself in that post.



    Do we want to preserve things as a society or do we want to allow individuals to shit on things because it suits them individually at this point in time to and they feel that they have a "right" to something.




    If they can build 10 houses in a Gaeltacht area, then I think that it would be reasonable that they restrict that to locals or at least people who are fluent in Irish. But sure that's probably racist and technically against some EU human rights charter. I think that if people were allowed to build houses with abandon on the Aran islands then it would ruin them. But the solution to that is not to have no houses. You need people to live there and work there and to keep it alive. So have a few houses for the locals. Don't build a few houses and put the rights to buy them up for lottery between a locals and a families in Dublin or Paris or Warsaw who'd like to have a house there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    El Tarangu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,618 ✭✭✭El Tarangu


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that. If someone's roots are deeply embedded in a particular location then my opinion is that if that is something of value to them, then it adds more to society as a whole to allow them to keep that as compared to giving it to a randomer who can't have the same appreciation of or connection to that history. That's the same whether it is Cabra or Sherrif St. or Leitrim.

    If someone from Sheriff St studies hard and earns a lot of money, they should be able to buy an apartment in D4 or wherever they like; they shouldn't be told: "sorry, all these apartments are reserved for the children of established D4 residents - tough luck".


  • Options
    #218
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,382 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    El Tarangu wrote: »
    If someone from Sheriff St studies hard and earns a lot of money, they should be able to buy an apartment in D4 or wherever they like; they shouldn't be told: "sorry, all these apartments are reserved for the children of established D4 residents - tough luck".


    That's right.


    But sure nobody is suggesting that.


    Neither is anyone suggesting that that person from Sherrif St should live on the moon in case you want to put that into an analogy



    If you want to buy a house in the countryside, you can do it. If you want an exception to the development plans which do not want to permit new one-off houses, you have to demonstrate why you need that exception. Saying "Wah wah I just want it because Mammy said I'm special" isn't good enough.


  • Options
    #219
    Kaybaykwah
    Registered Users Posts: 3,158 ✭✭✭Kaybaykwah


    Tiger20 wrote: »
    Not conjecture fact, , and while they didn't ask what they had for breakfast, the point is that some applicants are put through the wringer, which I have no problem with, while others are not asked. What I want is the same standard applied equally
    If you read a few planning applications, there are numerous examples, not urban legend. It is a fact, not conjecture, that some people get planning where many others were refused on the same site. Unequal treatment leads to no respect. It is you who is engaging in conjecture by saying people willingly throw spanners in the system and abuse it.


    No, I think that there is a process, and when things need ironing out, you call for a derogation and see how that goes with planning commissions, committees, whatnot. Every project has a set of rules regarding site usage and these need to be followed or contested accordingly, depending on the issue at hand.

    In the Murrays' case, they went above and beyond the proper way of going about building. The fact that they built this house at twice the size that had been refused in the first place, and disregarded the need for approval by zoning authorities.


  • Options
    #220
    El Tarangu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,618 ✭✭✭El Tarangu


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    That's right.

    If you want an exception to the development plans which do not want to permit new one-off houses, you have to demonstrate why you need that exception. Saying "Wah wah I just want it because Mammy said I'm special" isn't good enough.

    This is literally 'local needs', in a nutshell.


  • Options
    #221
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,382 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    El Tarangu wrote: »
    This is literally 'local needs', in a nutshell.




    Possibly to an ignorant blow-in


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    pigtown
    Registered Users Posts: 1,313 ✭✭✭pigtown


    Tiger20 wrote: »
    Pay Belgian taxes? Happily, if I got Belgian public services. As I pointed out, we get nothing for our property tax that we did not get before. I would have happily paid the water charge, because it is the one thing that you actually got to see what you paid for. Turn on your tap, theres your water. My point re planning laws, and all laws in this country, is that they are totally unfair and not applied evenly. There are many examples of this, for instance the Central Bank fmhad permission to build 16 storeys, but "someone" built 17, did they have to knock a floor? No. So, if you want a law applying to the people in this OP, then apply it to everyone

    What's this about the central bank? The new one on the docks?


  • Options
    #223
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Ok. I'll rephrase

    "You can suggest that if you want. The universities would be fairly empty though........"

    It was an off-the-cuff remark because the analogy was nonsensical, as you kinda said yourself in that post.



    Do we want to preserve things as a society or do we want to allow individuals to shit on things because it suits them individually at this point in time to and they feel that they have a "right" to something.




    If they can build 10 houses in a Gaeltacht area, then I think that it would be reasonable that they restrict that to locals or at least people who are fluent in Irish. But sure that's probably racist and technically against some EU human rights charter. I think that if people were allowed to build houses with abandon on the Aran islands then it would ruin them. But the solution to that is not to have no houses. You need people to live there and work there and to keep it alive. So have a few houses for the locals. Don't build a few houses and put the rights to buy them up for lottery between a locals and a families in Dublin or Paris or Warsaw who'd like to have a house there.

    a local is just an immigrants child.

    What you suggest is, correctly, illegal. You are restricting where I can live based on my Irish language abilities now.

    My spanish isnt great either. Guess I may as well divorce the Spanish wife

    Im baffled how that isnt obvious to you as you are the one making the call for special treatment. of locals


  • Options
    #224
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,382 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Im baffled how that isnt obvious to you as you are the one making the call for special treatment. of locals


    I don't know what gives you the idea that something isn't "obvious".


    I am explicitly calling for it and supporting it.



    The authorities do not want one-off houses as a rule. But they need to be able to have exceptions - the same as with practically every rule and guideline in the world. There are exceptions for genuine local needs. And rightly so. There has to be or else rural communities would die.



    Do you know that not all "locals" qualify for local needs? It is not a blanket guarantee to a certain subsection of people. There are a subset of people, even children of those who have lived for generations in rural areas, who can satisfy those criteria.


  • Options
    #225
    coolbeans
    Registered Users Posts: 3,059 ✭✭✭coolbeans


    El Tarangu wrote: »
    If someone from Sheriff St studies hard and earns a lot of money, they should be able to buy an apartment in D4 or wherever they like; they shouldn't be told: "sorry, all these apartments are reserved for the children of established D4 residents - tough luck".

    I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand the issue here. If someone from Sheriff Street wants to buy a house or a flat in D4 then they can. They can also buy a house in rural Ireland if they like.


  • Options
    #226
    coolbeans
    Registered Users Posts: 3,059 ✭✭✭coolbeans


    El Tarangu wrote: »
    If someone from Sheriff St studies hard and earns a lot of money, they should be able to buy an apartment in D4 or wherever they like; they shouldn't be told: "sorry, all these apartments are reserved for the children of established D4 residents - tough luck".

    I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand the issue here. If someone from Sheriff Street wants to buy a house or a flat in D4 then they can. They can also buy a house in rural Ireland if they like. The reason there are restrictions on building in the countryside is because without them we'd have a free for all where whole roads would be taken over endless ribbon development which ruins the landscape and is incredibly expensive to provide services to. One way to handle this situation is to give preference to local needs thereby acknowledging the requirement for some new builds while simultaneously putting some sort of a brake on new dwellings. It's a crude way of doing things but with so many people a generation or less away from the land it's almost impossible to stop one offs completely.
    As for the need for the planning system dysfunctional as it may be the entire countryside would be lit up without it.


  • Options
    #227
    El Tarangu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,618 ✭✭✭El Tarangu


    coolbeans wrote: »
    I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand the issue here. If someone from Sheriff Street wants to buy a house or a flat in D4 then they can. They can also buy a house in rural Ireland if they like.

    Allow me to rephrase: a person from Sheriff st should have as much right as someone from Athboy to buy a plot of land outside Athboy and build a house. Either the land in Athboy is zoned and available to purchase to be built upon by people from Athboy or Tralee or Seville, or should be left as it is. There should be no hierarchy of citizens in a republic.


  • Options
    #228
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    So is the house in the OP still been lived in ?


  • Options
    #229
    Tiger20
    Registered Users Posts: 94 ✭✭Tiger20


    pigtown wrote: »
    What's this about the central bank? The new one on the docks?

    Apologies. I referenced the fact that in the late 70s/80s the Central Bank in Dame St constructed an extra floor and were in breach of planning. I thought they had remedied it by getting retention, but as other poster pointed out, they had to remove the unpermitted portion, at cost to the owners, the Central Bank, which is 100% owned by the state(the citizens, so it cost the taxpayers in reality). What I would like to know is if there was any sanction on the individual/s involved, which I very much doubt.


  • Options
    #230
    cbreeze
    Registered Users Posts: 869 ✭✭✭cbreeze


    I am afraid the tasteless monstrosity will probably remain the longer this drags on. It looks like a scanger's notion of posh!


  • Options
    #231
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,382 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    El Tarangu wrote: »
    Allow me to rephrase: a person from Sheriff st should have as much right as someone from Athboy to buy a plot of land outside Athboy and build a house. Either the land in Athboy is zoned and available to purchase to be built upon by people from Athboy or Tralee or Seville, or should be left as it is. There should be no hierarchy of citizens in a republic.




    You have the same right of opportunity.


    You can of course buy the plot of land in Athboy, and you can of course apply for planning permission and outline why you are deserving of an exception. There will be guidelines that the planners have to follow, and you will rightfully be assessed using those same guidelines as everyone else.



    The same as how you have a right to apply for a graduate course in Trinity next year should you so wish. Your application will be judged according to the same criteria as everyone else.



    If you don't get either, then that's tough shit. You had your chances for both.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    fallen01angel
    Registered Users Posts: 338 ✭✭fallen01angel


    They really did bring it on themselves.....the planning was rejected more than once. If they had at least made some teeny tiny effort to be discreet and built something that resembled what they'd originally sought I might have some bit of sympathy for them.

    But my biggest issue is the vast discrepancy with Planners.....I spent a lot of money and time trying to get planning on family land, jumping through all kinds of hoops to no avail, eventually gave up and moved away...... was bitterly disappointed but what more could I do.
    You can imagine my reaction when a family of Travellers built this monstrosity of a house on land close by with zero planning permission......that house (the gaudiest house you could imagine....think engraved windows, fountains,lions on pillars etc) which broke every rural planning law ever conceived still stands to this day.......simply because of who they were......if you make rules......they should be applied across the board to everyone equally.


  • Options
    #233
    Lewis_Benson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,976 ✭✭✭Lewis_Benson


    handlemaster wrote: »
    So is the house in the OP still been lived in ?

    Yes, the house is still being lived in.


  • Options
    #234
    kravmaga
    Registered Users Posts: 1,949 ✭✭✭kravmaga


    Does anyone have a photo of what the house looks like


  • Options
    #235
    Darc19
    Registered Users Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭Darc19


    Google it.


  • Options
    #236
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,946 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Have to laugh at the precious posts about building a log cabin in the back garden for family members to live in.

    Doesn't meet the regulations
    Fire hazard
    Not legal
    Don't do it
    Planning Required. and so on.

    But build your Southfork in Co. Meath and who gives a hoot. Joke or what?


  • Options
    #237
    beveragelady
    Registered Users Posts: 854 ✭✭✭beveragelady


    kravmaga wrote: »
    Does anyone have a photo of what the house looks like

    https://goo.gl/maps/QLYsQcz7gRWjq3b19
    There's no streetview for the road the house is on.
    The map on geohive is better and more up to date but I can't find a way to link to a location.


  • Options
    #238
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭ [Deleted User]


    kravmaga wrote: »
    Does anyone have a photo of what the house looks like

    It's on the op article


  • Options
    #239
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'm surprised, but I just seen that it has an Eircode: C15 Y8P0

    I didn't think it'd get one, considering it's an illegal build..?


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    It costs the taxpayer a lot more to provide services for one-off housing.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    A lot more than what though? A lot more than building a metro underground in Dublin city centre?
    El Tarangu wrote: »
    Yes.

    Just out of curiousity, Tarangu, do you expect anyone to take any of your posts seriously, when you post nonsense like above?


  • Options
    #240
    rn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭rn


    An post will register an eircode once post is being delivered. They never look for PP.

    Banks and finance do and are very strict on that. This house has been built and paid for entirely out of owners funds. That is amazing.

    It is mad that enforcement has to be paid for by the builder. IMHO it's not a waste of rates payers cash to enforce the order by the council.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    paul71
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭paul71


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'm surprised, but I just seen that it has an Eircode: C15 Y8P0

    I didn't think it'd get one, considering it's an illegal build..?









    Just out of curiousity, Tarangu, do you expect anyone to take any of your posts seriously, when you post nonsense like above?


    Why is it nonsense. The cost of providing services to one off builds in rural areas costs the state billions every year with no return.


Advertisement