Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

Bass Reeves

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..?

This always amazes me,

Posters aligning services like bin collection, eircode, electricity supply with Planning. Even posters on about builders, engineers and architect's and question why they did not check.

Planning is the remit of Co Councils and An Bord Pleanala and that is it. The only other people that checks planning is a solicitor when you go to buy a house or a bank when you apply for a mortgage. Other entities that would have an interest in you having planning that supply you with services are limited. Technically even if you were getting a water connection from the Council it would not be in that deparment's remit to check if you had planning.

rn

bb1234567 wrote: »

It is odd but may well have been something to do with the building proposed on these sites.

paul71 wrote: »

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.

What's nonsense is your comment on no return. The only state services provided are electricity, post and roads. If you are lucky you also get water, waste and Internet. Only the roads are provided as a public asset. The builder/resident pays substantial money to connect power and water. An post and telcos are commercial. Pay for use. For every service, except post there's an urban and rural rate, the rural rate being substantially higher in my experience of having a one off house and an urban house within 5km of each other. In my experience the waste disposal on is several times higher than urban.

On water, many rural houses were paying for water either on group schemes or private well treatment. Thanks to urban objectors to Irish water, the group scheme people were winners alright. IMHO it's urban dwellers who expect general taxation to pay for their services. Rural dwellers are well used to paying for services.

Other points on provision of health care and education don't stack up because generally they are in a regional town village setting that requires healthcare and education whether you centralise rural population or allow ribbon development.

There's two points against rural ribbon development that are concerning alright. First is sewage treatment and ground water pollution. It's a real issue. I think jury is still out on current systems for me. And the other aspect is abandoned housing. We need planning to reduce new houses designs in favour or renovating or rebuilding existing houses, cottages and sites.

Tiger20

Tiger20 wrote: »

That's my point, which you seem to miss. We need rules, but ones that are applied to everyone. Why should these people have to take down their property if the Central Bank did not have to abide by the laws and remove a floor that they had no permission for? To me, that is the injustice

So, because we didn't solve a murder, anarchy?

CrankyHaus

Bass Reeves wrote: »

This always amazes me,

Posters aligning services like bin collection, eircode, electricity supply with Planning. Even posters on about builders, engineers and architect's and question why they did not check.

Planning is the remit of Co Councils and An Bord Pleanala and that is it. The only other people that checks planning is a solicitor when you go to buy a house or a bank when you apply for a mortgage. Other entities that would have an interest in you having planning that supply you with services are limited. Technically even if you were getting a water connection from the Council it would not be in that deparment's remit to check if you had planning.

The only amazing thing in all of that is the laziness involved. "Not in my remit" should come far behind "the public interest" within public bodies. However in practice the former is imperative and the latter treated like an inbred half-brother locked in the basement.

cnocbui

Oh, yeah, this house thing is liable to start an insurrection if not crushed with Roman efficiency and brutality. Board the owners up in it and burn it to the ground, that will show em. No talk anywhere of whether there might be fault with the planning officials who kept refusing their attempts to abide by this precious law.

Mellor

cnocbui wrote: »

Oh, yeah, this house thing is liable to start an insurrection if not crushed with Roman efficiency and brutality. Board the owners up in it and burn it to the ground, that will show em. No talk anywhere of whether there might be fault with the planning officials who kept refusing their attempts to abide by this precious law.

They made one attempt to get planning on this site. They didn't appeal the refusal.

Based on the poor design of the house they built, I wouldn't have any confidence in the quality of the design they applied for.
They had 3 retention applications, 2 were incomplete. So getting the paperwork right isn't a strength.

On what basis where the planners at fault? They are by no means infallible, but sounds like you are making assumptions.

cnocbui

paul71 wrote: »

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.

Oh really. I cordially invite you to provide some evidence of that. I live in a rural one off. I paid for a well, so the state paid not one cent towards water. There were power lines and phone lines running past the door, following the road that already existed. I paid connection charges to have the two services connected and then have paid standing charges on both for 18 years.

Where is the cost to the state? Is it for the first rate rubbish collection service that is provided by commercial companies, or for the provision of mobile phone services? Surely you aren't thinking it's for the provision of schools and hospitals - which are in villages, towns and cities anyway.

Ah, you must be thinking that without one off houses there wouldn't be a need for a road, or power and phone lines? There are multiple farms along the roads in question - they are why these amenities exist and are maintained. Now you could argue servicing farms and propping up the agricultural industry does cost the taxpayer billions, but then there's all those ancillary jobs that industry creates in towns and the taxes all those workers pay, not to mention the tourism industry needing those roads to exist in order for the billions a year to flow into the country annually and the hundreds of thousands of jobs created - or do you think tourists come to this country to see St Stephens green and then turn around and go home?

TheBoyConor

Originally Posted by 2018na View Post
Just to say I am familiar with the house and would know one of the Murrays but not the chap who built this house. My own view is they have made a monumental error of judgment with out question. But since then they have been through hell and back financially emotionally and I would imagine if they could turn the clock back then they never would dream of proceeding as they did with the build. In a lot of ways I feel they have served there sentence now and have been made an example of. It would be a shocking waste to demolish that building and would benefit no one. They are facing ginormous costs way above the value of the place anyway. It has set a precedent already imo no one in Ireland will attempt this again

No no no. No precedent has been set yet.
They need to be forced to knock it, or since they refuse the council should be compelled to knock it and charge the bill back to the murrays.
That is a precedent that will go down and will be taken heed of.

Doing as you suggest, the only precedent that would set is that you can give the finger to planning law, build whatever you want, let the council take you all the way to the fooking Supreme Court, and then just wave your arse at the demolition order....and get away with it!!
Then the next brazen necked cowboy will be on building another McMansion sans planning and moving in the elderly grannies, safe in the knowledge that if he is brazen enough to tough out the court and media shítstorm, neither the Council or or the Courts actually have the gumption to go out and physically enforce any of their emty orders or vacuous threats.

Some precedent that would be.

TheBoyConor

lomb wrote: »

Probably but that isn't a planning issue but an environmental one. You should still be able to build your house provided my well isn't affected. Remember there was no planning pre 1963 and something like 1950 in the UK. No one died and no monstrosities were built. All that's happened is that house prices have shot vs incomes , builders are paid too much and I think it's largely due to the lack of planning. As trades specialise the price goes up even if nothing changes. My parents bought their house in 1990 for 60k , it's worth 600k today. So what would be 3 or 4 man years work is now about 14 . I don't care either way but Im not too partial to paying Irish taxation as see no value in it and want to move myself and my bus off shore.

Ah come here now, you're talking through your hole!

beveragelady

cnocbui wrote: »

Oh really. I cordially invite you to provide some evidence of that. I live in a rural one off. I paid for a well, so the state paid not one cent towards water. There were power lines and phone lines running past the door, following the road that already existed. I paid connection charges to have the two services connected and then have paid standing charges on both for 18 years.

Where is the cost to the state? Is it for the first rate rubbish collection service that is provided by commercial companies, or for the provision of mobile phone services? Surely you aren't thinking it's for the provision of schools and hospitals - which are in villages, towns and cities anyway.

Ah, you must be thinking that without one off houses there wouldn't be a need for a road, or power and phone lines? There are multiple farms along the roads in question - they are why these amenities exist and are maintained.

As well as the fact that we pay for their water as well as our own there's also the fact that rural dwellers don't benefit from things like streetsweeping or streetlights that exist in suburban residential areas, even though a portion of our tax goes towards them. So while one-off dwelling is not ideal the imbalance is not as clear as it might appear.

(I live in a one-off that's about 200 years old in the arse end of nowhere. Bloody love it.)

TheBoyConor

tayto lover wrote: »

Or maybe a few quid to the right councillors. RTÉ should investigate again.

Councillors have literally zero involvement in the decision making about whether to grant or refuse a planning application. They vote on part 8 Council own-development proposals but for Joe or Jane Soap building a house, or a commercial development, the Councillors have zero decision making power.

The fact that you don't know this just shows how little you know about planning.

dubrov

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Councillors have literally zero involvement in the decision making about whether to grant or refuse a planning application. They vote on part 8 Council own-development proposals but for Joe or Jane Soap building a house, or a commercial development, the Councillors have zero decision making power.

The fact that you don't know this just shows how little you know about planning.

All true. They do like to take credit for successful planning applications though. They do monitor them and will call around when approved implying they had a hand in the approval.

TheBoyConor

Donald Trump wrote: »

You could propose the state buying it off them at agricultural value for the land plus a nominal price for the building and using it to house older people or something like that. But that could starts to get messy and opens up other complications.

No that could not be done. It would be the utter height of hypocrisy for State to confiscate a house because it had no planning, only for they or one of it's agencies to set up shop in it to run a care home or some other gig out out it. They Council/ABP would need to go back on themselves to grant retention and change of use for it to be used as something other than a house, care home or whatever. It would look absolutely terrible for the Council/State to just go back and change their mind just to suit themselves.

That some people cannot see how ridiculous that would look worries me.

Also you must realise that a house built to an unknown standard would need massive and expensive reworking to make it acceptable for use as a care home or similar.
Then you also must realise that the Murry's would capitalise on it and rally everyone in the parish to object to the retention and/or change of use application by whatever state sponsored agency or contractor would be lined up to run the home.
The Murrays would play this like a fiddle.

Even if it happened, it would set a dangerous precedent that when push comes to shove, planning law and the Supreme Court can be disregarded and you can do whatever you please if you have enough brass neck to brazen it out.

TheBoyConor

dubrov wrote: »

All true. They do like to take credit for successful planning applications though. They do monitor them and will call around when approved implying they had a hand in the approval.

Of course they do. And that is only because most of them are full of shít.
But anyone who knows the score knows that they are talking through their hole most of the time.

Donald Trump

TheBoyConor wrote: »

No that could not be done. It would be the utter height of hypocrisy for State to confiscate a house because it had no planning, only for they or one of it's agencies to set up shop in it to run a care home or some other gig out out it. They Council/ABP would need to go back on themselves to grant retention and change of use for it to be used as something other than a house, care home or whatever. It would look absolutely terrible for the Council/State to just go back and change their mind just to suit themselves.

That some people cannot see how ridiculous that would look worries me.

You may have misread my post. I said to the poster that they could propose (i.e say that on here) that the state take it and then I pointed out that that would ultimately not be practical

cosatron

what i find strange, is how did the couple get a mortgage considering it is illegal. Or was the bank manager a sean fitzpatrick type

ronivek

cosatron wrote: »

what i find strange, is how did the couple get a mortgage considering it is illegal. Or was the bank manager a sean fitzpatrick type

They didn’t need one for the house. They’re in construction so presumably built it themselves on the cheap.

TheBoyConor

Bank probably didn't require for mortgage applicants to give proof of planning permission for giving out a mortgage.

This was back in the naughties - banks couldn't give out mortgages quick enough. Sure they were offering to give out cars along with it if someone would take out a mortgage. You didn't even have to have a steady job.

dxhound2005

There is no mention of a mortgage in the Irish Times article.

heldel00

paul71 wrote: »

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.

I'm interested in this
- we built our house out in country. Paid ourselves for ESB connection, paid council hefty commencement fees, have tarred at our own cost along the roadway, dug our own well at considerable cost too, would we really be costing state a huge amount?

smelly sock

Why would anyone need a house that big?

Also considering the size and amd state of it did nobody notice when it was being built? If someone had of stepped in then it would have saveda lot of hassle.

Also is there anything to be said for leaving them there until the youngest child is finished second level education?

CrabRevolution

cnocbui wrote: »

Oh, yeah, this house thing is liable to start an insurrection if not crushed with Roman efficiency and brutality. Board the owners up in it and burn it to the ground, that will show em. No talk anywhere of whether there might be fault with the planning officials who kept refusing their attempts to abide by this precious law.

Except for the extensive legal fight that went all the way to the Supreme Court and still lost?

StackSteevens

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Except for the extensive legal fight that went all the way to the Supreme Court and still lost?

Mate, it could go all the way to the Celestial Court, but God's verdict would still be argued ad infinitum and ad nauseam by the sad minority whose irrational hatred of planners has completely destroyed their capacity for logical thought.

StackSteevens

smelly sock wrote: »

Also is there anything to be said for leaving them there until the youngest child is finished second level education?

The Supreme Court was asked to consider that, among other things, but decided that lawbreakers shouldn't be indulged.

TheBoyConor

Dead right they were too. It is the parent's fault that the have put their kids in this position.

Supreme Court needs to put pressure on the Meath CoCo. Chief Executive to get this demolition job done.

If the state rolls over on this and appears gutless, then planning law isn't worth a fiddlers and every parish chancer and town yahoo will be throwing up houses and sheds and every sort of thing because they know they will get away with it if the hold their brazen nerve all the way through.

Yellow_Fern

There is a case for massive deregulation of planning, but not in rural areas.

Thoie

Darc19 wrote: »

Every document relating to every planning application is online for everyone to read.

Decisions are described in detail both those refused and those granted.

But some people just hate that their preconceived notions are blown out by facts.

Tiger20 wrote: »

While it is true that planning applications are public documents available to view, it does not reflect the fair application of the system. <...> I have seen reports done by the local planners, recommending refusal, then for some reason, a second report done by an executive planner, either concerning or disagreeing with the original assessment, and if disagreeing third report by a senior executive planner simply adding an addendum saying pin this case an exception can be made. I have seen cases where all three reports recommend refusal, only for the authorities to decide to grant.

<...>
sometimes a request to provide documents by the applicant has not been made, and a decision is granted, while others are nearly asked what they had for breakfast and to provide documentary evidence. So while the system is not perfect, no system ever is, but the application of the system is very very arbitrary

I agree with Tiger20, while documents are there, there is always a feeling that there must be some undocumented things happening as well. For example one recent file I was looking at had a recommendation that works only start at a particular time each day, for a variety of good reasons. The second report also restated that particular start time. The actual planning granted was for 2 hours earlier, seemingly ignoring both of their own experts, and, as anticipated by the original reports, the earlier start time has caused a lot of problems. Other developments in the same area around the same period were only granted permission for the later daily start time. No reason is documented publicly as to why one could start so much earlier.

Similarly when my parents were building a small residential extension (with planning), someone from the council came out twice during the works to double check measurements and ensure that everything matched what was in the plans.

Yet when I complained that a large development was significantly deviating from plans (not just conditions, the actual plans), I was told that "they don't do site visits, and the developers self-certified that everything was OK".

I don't think there's any massive conspiracy, but within the same area, decisions and actions are far from uniform or transparent.

JimmyVik

Just seeing this thread now.
Out where I live there are numerous houses (small enough houses and on parents land) that have gone up in recent years with no planning permission.
Talking to people around about it the idea is that whenever the council come to notice, they will just apply for retention.
And if thats not successful then they will carry on for a good 10 years plus before they lose the houses.
I was wondering where they thought they could get away with that. I guess now I know.

Mellor

Thoie wrote: »

Similarly when my parents were building a small residential extension (with planning), someone from the council came out twice during the works to double check measurements and ensure that everything matched what was in the plans.

Yet when I complained that a large development was significantly deviating from plans (not just conditions, the actual plans), I was told that "they don't do site visits, and the developers self-certified that everything was OK".

Planning don't do site visits or checks. You are confusing two different departments.
No department could possibly inspect every aspect of every build. Usually it's by a third party who signs a document stating as much. Banks in particular take a interest in that document for obvious reasons.

Mellor

JimmyVik wrote: »

Talking to people around about it the idea is that whenever the council come to notice, they will just apply for retention.
And if thats not successful then they will carry on for a good 10 years plus before they lose the houses.

If they can afford to drop 6 figures on a temporary 10-year house, then it's there money.
More money than sense if you ask me though