Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

What discrimination? Housing planning is strictly controlled. But they have to allow a certain number of people who have essential need to build houses. That is a necessary compromise.

Any attempt to dress that up as "discrimination" and then trying to remove that "discrimination" will just mean that people with the essential need won't be allowed to build. It won't mean what I suspect you think it would mean which would be that anyone could build.

If you have a small island that needs preserving, would it be better to allow one house to be built for a lighthouse keeper to live in, or for one house to be built for the wealthy randomer who might visit once every couple of years as a holiday home?

Please take it up with the poster who made the suggestion.

I only intervened to explain what he suggested.

If you were to move to Australia, buy a block of land near a beach and then apply for planning to build a house, they wouldn't discriminate against you on the basis of whether you were a local or not in making a decision.

There is absolutely no shortage of land in Connemara, for example, so excluding planning for people not local has absolutely nothing to do with conserving a limited resource for local needs.

Well you clearly don't understand the issue. They are trying to conserve something. If Australia has nothing worth conserving then that it can do what it likes.

Your article link is more than 15 years old and is about the EU asking Ireland to explain its process (and giving it 2 months to do so). It is also very badly written. Do you think they are still waiting on the response?

But it’s not based in an essential need. It’s based on being local, which has no bearing on how essential it is.

your lighthouse example makes no sense either. gore both ways.

If the lighthouse operator doesn’t already have a house, then he is not local. So he’d be refused permission. But the wealthy owner of a local hotel instead gets to build a house for his son. Who them rents it as a summer house while he lives in Dublin. Local needs at its best.

The lighthouse operator is absolutely discriminated against.

Too much chatting in this thread and not enough demolition, I wanna see a giant claw reefing a house out of it. At this stage they could sell tickets to the event

Plenty of other local council and environmental law and by-laws being broken every day and being ignored by the authorities eg. Fly tipping, illegal halting sites, neglected horses roaming puclic roads, uncontrolled dangerous dogs without licensces, etc. But hey, the councils, gardai, and courts always seem to chose to go after the easy target. Easy target = Family who have money (earned legally and paid their taxes I presume) and will pay a fine, family who are not going to threaten or intiminate the gardai or wardens, family who fear a criminal record will impact future career and travel visas.

I'm not saying I support what the home owner did, I agree with having planning laws. But it seems to be one rule for one, another rule for others in this country all the time.

Would you rather a "Family who have money" be allowed do what they like?

Rejected, built anyway and build nearly 600m2, that's over 6000 square foot!! Without planning!! should the council just roll over. Should have been demolished the first time it was seen.

They were ordered to demolish in 2017 and agreed to leave in 2020......

I'm not following you. People get planning permission to create a building in a certain location.

"other people break the law so these people should be allowed to as well" or some similar such nonsense

No, no, no. My point is that everyone who breaks the law should be treated the same. Rich or poor, settled or cultured, young or old, etc. . The council and courts are chasing this house owner who refused to comply with planning laws, chasing them until they the house is demolished, fines are paid, or whatever the outcome will be. But again, the point I make is that councils/justice system chose to chase this case, but ignore all the other illegal cases under their noses everyday (such as the examples I gave earlier ...Fly tipping, illegal halting sites, neglected horses roaming puclic roads, uncontrolled dangerous dogs without licensces, etc).

I reported a fly tipper around 5 years ago, I noted their car reg. Called the local council with all the details, photos of the rubbish. Nothing ever became of it. I even followed up with the environmental dept at the council to see when the court hearing was on, I was told no prosecutions would be made. Few weeks later the council cleaned up the area, the cost of which falls onto the tax payers.

Oh come on. The whole country knows local.councils dont chase fly tippers, they dont chase those responsible for roaming neglected horses, they dont chase illegal halting sites, they dont chase owners of dogs who dont keep them.under control with no microchip or license. You kniw well what I mean. Stop asking silly questions.

Knock it.