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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Couple Ordered to Demolish House - any update?

11819202123

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 138 ✭✭byrne249


    The presumption of your entire argument then is that these people simply built a house without planning and their was absolutely no extenuating circumstances that led to this. You believe they are simply awful people who think they are above everyone else. I now challenge you to prove that that is indeed the case since you are so convinced. Prove those applications don't exist and that they are just horrible people

    Do you see the fallacy in trying to put the burden of proof onto another commenter yet or do you want more examples?

    Edit: And to clarify, I'm not defending them building the house. That was stupid and illegal. I am simply wondering aloud what led down that path because I don't believe these things happen in a vaccuum



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,748 ✭✭✭Bluefoam


    There is no ambiguity, you either have planning permission or you don't. Without having approval you can't go ahead and build.

    They chose to put their finger upnto everyone else. House has to be demolished. Hopefully they learn a positive lesson as a consequence of their actions.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,438 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    The presumption of your entire argument then is that these people simply built a house without planning and their was absolutely no extenuating circumstances that led to this.

    The "extenuating circumstances" are that they applied to build a regular-sized house on the land and were refused, so they responded by building this absolute monstrosity and basically dared the Council to do something about it.

    This isn't a case of 'two sides to every story', there is only one party at fault here.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,632 ✭✭✭Shoog


    A world without planning controls would be a terrible place. They are there for a very good reason.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,235 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    Not necessarily he may have taken out a personal loan. It was no problem in 2006/7 to get loans of several 100k if you were in business. As well remember all the dodgy legal cases. He nay have got a solicitor to ignore looking for the planningpermission.

    I be betting on a substantial personal loan

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,853 ✭✭✭Gusser09


    Only as good as the enforcement that goes with them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,576 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    You made a claim that the Murray's were being victimised and other people were given preferential treatment and you were simply asked to provide a link.

    By their actions they themselves have proved they are simply awful people who think they are above everyone else.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,654 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Many tradespeople (anecdotally) could have built direct labour by putting the materials through their business to expense them and paid cash for labour to use up cash they had as their own income. The advantage of putting money into one's own house is that there is no CGT if you eventually decide to sell.

    I'm obviously not saying or suggesting that happened in this case. Or that anything was not above board.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,632 ✭✭✭Shoog


    Trades people also barter a lot of skills/time which though theoretically is taxable income - the revenue almost never goes after it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,235 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    I agree, however its unlikely tgat he could have build tge house completely that way unless his business was turning over several million a year. Even using cash, direct labour and through a business that house would have 600k++ cost

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,654 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Well how feasible it would be might also depend on how long it being built. The other thing would be that if a person had cash that was accounted for and tax paid on it, they could, in theory, chance using that cash to build something and then later replenish it from other cash sources.

    Again not suggesting that anything was done in any specific case.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,446 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    I had a look at the Meath CoCo planning site and I noted a couple of things. Firstly the Murray's were refused permission for a dormer type house in June 06 but in March 07 they applied for permission to retain their 2 storey house. So in that 9 month period which was a time that you would have to wait a year or more to get a contractor or trades people they constructed a substantial sized house. This leads me to believe they had a contractor lined up before the first planning application and were intent on building with or without planning permission.

    Secondly, and this may settle a difference of opinion from earlier, there have been 5 planning refusals for proposed houses across the road / lane from the Murray's property.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,576 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    So the Murray's weren't victimised and others did not get preferential treatment for planning applications in the same area, I wonder did Byrne249 invent any other little stories?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,966 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    They hadn't broke ground in Nov 2005, so it was some going alright. He had his own building company though. He owned the land across the road where the same person was refused 5 times for various reasons .

    Edit;

    the 5 refusals were not all for the same person but had the same surname



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,576 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    To be fair, I don't think it's anyones business how the house was financed and also think it shouldn't be speculated about on a public forum by people who haven't a clue.

    It's their own private business how it was bought and paid for and nobody here is entitled to know, the fact that they built it without planning permission is of public concern and it's important that the public are kept up to date on how the case will be dealt with.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,294 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,446 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    Couldn't agree more. Much like the talk earlier about EU requirements etc for locals, how the Murrays financed the development is completely irrelevant.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,853 ✭✭✭Gusser09


    It must be seriously frustrating for the Council to be fair. They are trying to implement enforcement of planning laws but are toothless to do so because of the way the system is setup.

    Surely when and appeal fails they would have enough time to issue enforcement notification and act on it before the Murrays could lodge another appeal. One thing is for certain this can't go on forever.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    I'm sorry it very much is our business if the family are now using poor plumber as part of there defense.

    "The judge showed regret regarding having to make the decision mostly due to the applicants hardships given that as a plumber his work was greatly affected by the recession after the house was built"

    But they built a house TWICE as big as the house they were refused permission for, with no mortgage!

    They didn't build some essential dwelling to take them off the streets of poverty, they took the piss with Irish laws and people who genuinely need houses but cannot get planning permission, but OBEY the law



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,576 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    I'm sorry but exactly how is it is any of your business where they got the money to build the house from?

    A Judge showing empathy for a defendant in a court case because of changed circumstances doesn't bestow any rights on you or anyone else to delve into their personal financial history.

    In a sad attempt to strengthen your silly argument you actually made it even weaker by stating "with no mortgage!"

    How you can state for a fact they built the house without a mortgage is an absolute mystery.

    Do you really believe everything you see written on boards.ie?

    You must be very gullible and also very ignorant of how banks operate their business.

    Or, maybe, you actually already know the intimate details of the Murrays financial affairs.

    Perhaps you might enlighten us how you know for a fact the house was built without a mortgage.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,526 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    I'm not the poster you're responding to, however:

    "Perhaps you might enlighten us how you know for a fact the house was built without a mortgage."

    For mortgage applications and payments, you have to give the planning permission reference showing you've been granted permission for the build. You then need an architect/engineer/surveyor to complete stage inspections for the drawdown of the mortgage payments to the contractor and a Certificate of Compliance With Planning Permission (and with Building Regulations) from that arch/eng/surv for the bank to draw down the final payment.

    Now, given that this happened at the height of the Boom, there's certainly a chance there was little to no oversight of this, the bank didn't really care, and they gave out most or all of the money for it without there being any planning permission. But that's much less likely than there simply being no mortgage.

    That's not to say they may not have taken out loans to part-fund the works, but in terms of a mortgage to fund the majority of the build, it's highly unlikely.

    You would also then have to factor in that if they have a mortgage, then the bank would be far more heavily involved as they would hold the mortgage to the property.

    So yes, it's extremely likely that they built without a mortgage.

    Post edited by Penn on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,576 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    I've read your post twice and have no idea what point you are trying to make.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 526 ✭✭✭ledwithhedwith


    lol I think you are the one showing extreme ignorance if you think a bank allowed a mortgage on a property without planning permission. Thats infantile level knowledge needed.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,526 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    The banks don't give mortgages for new house builds unless you have planning permission to build the house. And they require a registered professional (architect etc) to sign a legal document saying you built as per your granted planning permission.

    They did not have planning permission, therefore it can be assumed they did not have a mortgage.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,632 ✭✭✭Shoog


    Its quite simple - if you don't have planning permission no Bank will ever give you a mortgage on an unbuilt house - is that simple enough for you ?

    Why ? Because there will be zero equity as surety in the final property for exactly the reason why the Murrys are in the **** now.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,966 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    I think it's your last line is confusing Rose,

    So yes, it's extremely unlikely that they built without a mortgage.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,446 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    Whether there was a mortgage or not is a moot point as far as this thread is concerned. Personally I couldn't care less where they got the money from. The discussion is about a couple who built a house without planning permission and have been ordered to demolish it by the courts.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭ForestFire


    Explain how you get a mortgage without planning permisssion?

    From an Irish solicitors' website

    "Why is planning permission important?

    It’s imperative to check and understand the planning status of a property that you intend to purchase as the bank will only lend you money if everything is in order. If there is anything dubious about the planning, your solicitor will need to write to the bank giving them full details of whatever the issue is and asking if they will still be willing to give you a mortgage."

    So I think it's safe to at least question if they had a mortgage. (Okay I should add "No Mortgage Likely in my opinion" at the end just be be clear.)

    Also, I built around this time and had to go through a strict system planning a mortgage approval with many documents to both the council and banks. (The Council even wanted a sample of the rock used for the external wall to be brought into the office for reference/approval)

    In fact, I think there was also an approx. 10K/15 service fee to be paid to the council as part of the build (Road access, Lights, etc.) I think water and sewage connections were extra again…Is this another fee that this couple did not pay?

    In the end, I don't particularly give a crap what you or others might think, if I want to discuss the ins and out of how they might have funded this ILLEGAL development I will. They are not Victims in all of this, they are lawbreakers, and pretty ruthless ones at that, for their blatant disregard for planning laws by building a 6000ft house.

    They have now brought this case (Appeal) to the Public court system and made these statements in their defence, which the Judge is reacting to, and therefore open for discussion.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,576 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    Anyone else like to throw in their tuppence worth to prove how little they actually know about how to finance a new house build?

    (Feel free to throw in a veiled insult as well and of course don't worry about using the word "assume' when asked for facts.)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,966 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    Of course it can be “financed” without planning with savings, personal loans, family loans, lottery win etc. but unlikely to be mortgaged.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,809 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Before this thread gets locked for mad speculation, can we move away from the question regarding funding as for all we know it was made possible using lottery winnings.
    Let's stick to the ignoring of the planning rules.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,600 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    Might there be a rare snail that has now taken up residence in the gardens and grounds of the house that can’t be disturbed as it’s a protected species and at risk of extinction? 🤪



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,074 ✭✭✭standardg60


    That's a very good point about the service fees, clearly there was none paid because they would have formed part of any PP.

    Another two fingers to everyone else who has to pay them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,526 ✭✭✭✭Penn




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,576 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    This thread should be a sticky on why you should keep quiet when you have no idea what the topic of discussion is actually about instead of reading posts and assuming they are facts.

    Mark Twain once said "It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it."

    Less of the wild accusations of financial irregularities, it's just silly talk from ignorant people who assume things.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 526 ✭✭✭ledwithhedwith


    what are you actually talking about. You literally cannot mortgage a house without planning permission. I’ve worked in mortgage sales for a large bank. You are calling everyone and their aunt ignorant when it’s you being ignorant. They simply do not have a mortgage on that property. It is also irrelevant.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,074 ✭✭✭standardg60


    This post should be a sticky on how to hoist oneself by one's own petard.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,576 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    I'd love to believe that you worked in mortgage sales for a large bank but something doesn't quiet add up.

    Were you actually qualified for that particular job, how long did it last and why did you leave?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,632 ✭✭✭Shoog


    So how do you get a mortgage in Ireland on a new build without planning permission ?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,966 ✭✭✭chooseusername


    Mark Twain also said ,"Never argue with a fool as onlookers might not be able to tell the difference"

    So I'll leave you to it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,576 ✭✭✭Rows Grower




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,349 ✭✭✭Homer


    if everyone could just put Rows Grower on the old ignore list that would be great! Another fine example of a poster ruining a thread.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,632 ✭✭✭Shoog




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,074 ✭✭✭standardg60


    A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, not sure if he meant the spelling though.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,966 ✭✭✭chooseusername




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,576 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    When the penny drops Shoog self reflects.

    He took one for the team of Karen's who lost the plot.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,235 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    The same way back in the noughties you got multiple mortgages on the same property, the same way you got a mortgage on a site that was not transfered to your, the same way you got a mortgage on a site with no proper access.

    People assuming that the present mortgage rules were the same in the noughties. They were not. Banks now have checks and balances to make sure you have planning, the site belongs to you, there is unrestricted access to the site and that you have no other loan on the property etc......in the noughties they did not make such stringent checks

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 526 ✭✭✭ledwithhedwith


    I did respond. But no point responding to WUMs. Ignore list activated.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 526 ✭✭✭ledwithhedwith


    if you think checking for planning permission qualifies as a stringent check you are the same as Growers haha



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,632 ✭✭✭Shoog


    I call BS. A mortgage is based upon the saleability of an asset and always has been. The bank has always done due diligence to establish if the asset is valuable enough to meet the price of the mortgage if the property has to be repossessed. A property without PP is unsellable and has been for decades. Nothing has changed in this regard.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement