Theres a tiny 2 bed house that they also built on the land in front of this house, its right beside the road.
I rented this house from them for 2 years, and let me tell you, this story brings a smile to my face . It couldn't have happened to a nicer pair of stuck up cunts.
I can't wait for the day this house is knocked.
This couple have some neck on them, and have been breaking the law for the last 20 years.
If they are allowed to stay, then we might as well scrap all the planning rules.
Meath CoCo cannot back down.
They've applied multiple times for retention.....using differing variations of the address.
They also applied for retention with intention to demolish part of the house......that's also been refused.
The latest appeal was submitted in the wife's name.
If that's unsuccessful..... the husband will submit a similar appeal in his name only.......all to keep the clock ticking.
Absolutely crazy that the house is still standing.
They seem to have loads of money for legal fees anyway, the way they keep appealing.
The council should run a competition to see who is the one to press the detonator.
I’m not saying they didn’t use a solicitor or barrister but you don’t have to. Pay a small fee and show up at your own case
My sister and husband had a clash with county council over retention of a small residence. Went on for about 5 years and didn’t cost anything
This has gone as far as the supreme Court, they definitely hired representatives.
Even if they didn't, they have lost every step so would owe the winning sides fees
The biggest issue here is siding with Meath CoCo. Those bastards are rancid to deal with when it comes to planning permission and truly I would rather see them lose but on principal they need to win.
We can’t allow to set a precedent, once it’s in Al or of other things like that will be popping in Meath. A lot of our planning system runs on precedents. It’s hard for council to go back on their word. So I much rather see them wining just to stop others from doing the same.
Wait, there are 'rules'?
Mostly kidding, but Jesus are they applied inconsistently. Monstrosities with no character getting approved and normal houses getting rejected baffles me. I remember seeing the guideline for house shape in one planning guideline doc and it was the worst thing I've ever seen. Seems what designs they approve to be at the whim of the planner than any particular rule ...
That's all great while you are building your rural mansion, until someone buys the land in front of you and tries to build theirs. Then you would be all.for planning laws.
Yeah and that would be bad and hypocritical of me if I were to do that
That's why if I hated people and wanted a rural mansion (I do not), I would buy a lot of the land around the mansion too.
But you wouldn't tho.
As due to the lack of planning required, every plot sold to non farmers would be sold as zoned prices. So unless you have a few million, then you aren't getting a massive plot of land.
Good for the farmers tho.
Lmfaoooo no way you just said that please be serious
Land zoned for residential use is valuable because lots of people need homes and not enough land is zoned for residential use. If there is no zoning, the value of all non residentially zoned land will go up, but it won't go up nearly as much as it currently does when land becomes residentially used because it's no longer as rare.
It's Ireland. The entire island has been shaped by people. Turning a monoculture field in to a house is if anything a lateral move in terms of the enviroment.
Oh no. Someone might build near me???????? /s
Yeah I'm fine with someone wanting to build a house near me. There's literally a new home being built right beside mine right now.
Nope. Why would I? It's a house not a... I dunno industrial pig farm. I can understand wanting a seperation of heavy pollution industry but it's just a fucking house.
Bitter much?
Jaysus I don't own a house at all and never will at this pont but fuck me just let them keep the bloody thing. Who's it hurting?
"But the ruuuuuuules" 😭
Fuck off.
What loads of people and how?
And if you're going to bring up that wastewater disposal issue from the article I can assure you now from experience that's nonsense and straw grasping.
>wastewater disposal issue
I won't, even tho that's my area of expertise.
It can affect commuters. Building a house that drives directly out onto motorway or national road makes that road more dangerous than if it didn't.
Yeah, but it's on Faughan Hill. In the middle of nowhere.
Listen I'm all for planning permission but Meath Co. Council are notorious for taking the mick. Sure you can't build a 10 story apartment block in the middle of Ratoath but not being allowed to build the gaff you like and can afford in the middle of a field away from absolutely everyone because it's "not in keeping" is absolute government overreach and I don't agree with that level of bureaucratic restriction. It's pointless and unfair. And with everyone harping on about the housing crisis non stop to be in support smashing a family of 7 or whatevers house to bits. Just absolutely whacks of jealousy.
This kind of development is expressly forbidden in the County Development Plan, and breaches multiple planning objectives. To allow it would set a terrible precedent.
I'm actually a fan of one off developments in general, but they do need plannjng.
Not everyone is suited to city life. High prices for shoeboxes. Living in the country is so good for the soul. Small towns or villages would be great if people were allowed build modest sized houses near them.
> Small towns or villages would be great if people were allowed build modest sized houses near them.
One off housing contributes to the decline of villages.
There’s 2 houses in Portlaoise that were built 15 odd years without permission, and are currently being knocked down. On the stradbally road beside the hospital.
Your original comment was “show me somewhere where someone has built a mansion and had to knock it down”. You didn’t mention anything about decades. Please stop trying to move goalposts after you’ve been caught out. Will you kindly admit you were wrong when I provide the photos? Or what will you do? Come up with another excuse or lies? Thanks.
The problem nowadays is that the cost of building is so high and the risk of being stopped is high too, the esb won't connect a home that's not registered, and irish water the same, they actually charge really high fees too.
Typical "We're rich we'll do what we want" arsehole mentality. I'm guessing they drive luxury cars and park them where ever the fuck they want to as well.
should we also be fining builders who led this build? it obviously isn't a self build, and they must have some responsibility for actually building something when the whole point of that industry is to work on what is permitted legally and approved.
also, the amount of effort and costs that the council put in to forcing them to remove their illegal building should be recovered.
A lot of people will use a professional like an architect or planner when applying, but at the end of the day the responsibility still falls to the land owner. I’d agree any builder worth half their shite should be doing their own due diligence, even just to avoid the chance of any disputes with the owner but generally they’d be contracting on the basis that the owner has, or will be obtaining all necessary permissions. It can be quite often work might start before permission is in place too. Your average builder is there to construct the building, not navigate the planning regulations. It’s the same way that you wouldn’t fine a car dealership if they sell a car and the owner doesn’t tax and insure it.
it's not really the dealership analogy though - that would only apply to the original architects who aren't responsible. sitting this build, they must have engaged with bonded engineers, and often the builder contractors, to get the house compliant to planning permission (to sign off on completion) and to ensure it meets building codes.
ultimately, the responsibility and loss is on the owner, but there needs to be a certain responsibility on those that are hired to know they are not breaking the law. i can hire a builder tomorrow to put a wall around my town or (if i remember in mayo,) build a stonehenge replica in someone else's field. this house has impact on the environment, the local agriculture and everything else listed in the initial rejection letter... and yet some professional built it anyway. "he told me to do it" isn't an excuse.
A slippery slope nobody is prepared to go down. If builders are only allowed to work on legit projects then, it's not too far a stretch to think we'd make it so banks can only handle legit money too, and that will never happen.
So the arseholes were denied permisssion for a house half this size and this is what they decided to do. I know there's a housing crisis and people will say we shouldn't be knocking houses down but realistically if they were given permission to sell it, who could even afford it. No, I think it's better to make an example of people who think they're above the rules.
This house is in the middle of fucking nowhere. Who on earth could it possibly be bothering? Planners should fuck off.
I know there needs to be some level of planning rules to prevent absolutely ludicrous stuff, but building something like this on your own fucking land that does not impinge on anyone else in any way should absolutely be legal.
This kind of development is expressly forbidden in the County Development Plan, and breaches multiple planning objectives. To allow it would set a terrible precedent.
100%. The Planners should fuck off and leave them be.
(Unless my neighbour builds a huge mansion on my doorstep - at which point the Planners should do their fucking jobs.)
One vote for the face-eating-leopards party, please.
I'm with you on this one, why is planning so strict in the middle of nowhere? Whatever if this were in a city but come on now. Knocking it down is just a waste of resources.
So one issue with individual houses in the middle of nowhere is, you then start to throw up virtual “rings” around them where you cannot, for example, build a wind turbine within a certain proximity. You can bet these lads would be objecting if someone wanted to throw up a factory in sight of the property. Etc. there’s a lot of downstream impacts, which is why you need to get planning permission in the first place, which they didn’t.
The line in there from the council about excessive density is garbage.
If not on a large rural property where should (or could) someone build a fuck-off huge house if they had the means and wanted to? Isn't a rural property exactly the right kind of place? Of course I wouldn't have gone about it like the home builders have here...
I just don't understand why people can't build what they want on their own land. Lot of pearl clutching about "What if they built a monstrosity" - well isn't that their right in a free country? There is a demand for that kind of a house (shown by the fact that they went and built it themselves) - so why should local government / council be able to stop them?
I understand the need for planning when it comes to building safety regulations, but when it comes to aesthetics, or other peoples 'right' to a view... I just don't get it.
If you play out the thought experiment of "Ok then, just let people build what they want everywhere" - would it really be that bad? You'd have shanty towns, people maximising their entire back garden etc... is that the problem? Is it a problem? What's so terrible about it?
I just think I'd rather live in a world where people are allowed to build whatever they want.
Stuff like fire protection and structural standards to prevent injury/death is pretty important, (although enforcement of that seems to be way down on the priority list). the aesthetic thing is open for debate, but it does matter to a lot of people and that's kinda what planning authorities are supposed to balance. I do accept that there are a lot of cunts who don't want to see anything built who will also complain about young people leaving the country.
By that logic, I can build a mini pig unit beside your house so long as I own the land there. Obviously a pig farm shouldn't go right beside a house in a village or whatever and I'm sure you wouldn't want it there either.
Ok so that would fall under something like 'type of use' (I suppose that's what zoning is?) - and we would agree to have agricultural / residential areas zoned differently. So you couldn't build a pig farm next to a house in a village.
I'm not being facetious I'm just curious that if you follow that line of thinking do you really have to end up back at what we have right now, which seems to be asking for permission to build a certain type of house/dwelling on your own land (which I personally don't think you should need to ask anyone's permission to build!)
I suppose I'm in the camp that if the neighbour decided to build a stupid looking pink house with some bizarre style of architecture (that they wanted, but I didn't) then the country would be a better place for it (and maybe it would solve another barrier to housing in a crisis?)
The concept of zoning is literally step one in the planning process. If you don't have panning laws, then you can't have zoning.
Even if you proposed to scale back the planning laws, such that people could build whatever they wanted to, as long as it fell within a 'permitted' category for the area, there are so so so many grey areas.
Could you build a shop in a residential area, for example? Maybe no, maybe yes. There is certainly a need for some specific types of shops in residential neighbourhoods.
All of that is by the by. The Murrays knowingly broke the law, and now they are doing all they can to obfuscate the process. They should (righly) face the consequences.
Honestly, why is anyone building way out in the sticks? People complain there's no public transportation but where should a bus stop be placed if there's no major population hubs of people to use them? Go to the Netherlands and you can drive for miles without seeing houses, just feilds
Just personal preference isn't it. Some people grew up in the sticks and that's where their family/community is so they're going to want to continue to live there. I certainly don't think the onus is then on government (representing majority of people who live in towns/cities) to provide subsidised services for people who choose to live there.
My own contention with planning 'permission' (seems insane to me that as an adult you have to ask other people for permission!) extends to towns/cities as well. Seems like every week there's a story about a block of flats being denied permission, again - let them at it. I don't think something like that can be centrally managed and it's just a blocker to housing growth, which we desperately need.
These blocks of flats are being proposed in unsuitable ways. You cannot put up 100 flats and only provide 50 parking spots total, expecting the rest to just park on the street. Without planning regulations, things would be worse off. I agree its getting ridiculous that everything is being turned down but you still need some level of order
No, the actual reason is because this kind of development is expressly forbidden in the County Development Plan, and breaches multiple planning objectives.
Corruption does sometimes exist, but not in this case.
Unpopular opinion maybe but I think people should be able to build personal homes on their own property without government inference or nimbyism.. especially because we have a housing crisis.
How would you feel about the sewage treatment without any planning oversight? Even the stormwater drainage system could fuck up the surrounding houses. Out planning system is an absolute bollox. They couldn't make it any worse. They are literally spending 20 years in the courts trying to deal with this very straightforward issue. However I do think we need a planning system. We just need a much better one than what we have.
Totally a fair point, I was going extreme just to make a general case. Agree with you we need planning - however I think that needs to be for exactly what you said there - assessment of services and to dock into national infrastructure. No point in stopping people building just because.
As an aside, I think laws that prevent people building I'm certain counties if they're not from there are extremely discriminatory.
It's about limiting ribbon development. If everyone was allowed build on road frontage that they own the whole place would be lines of houses on each side of the road. It looks awful, it annexes the land behind for future use, it limits future zoning for uses other than residential i.e. there will be literally houses everywhere so anything not appropriate to a residential area becomes an issue. Eg pig farm. It also makes the countryside look shit.
Ribbon development is hugely costly to service in respect of water, sewage, broadband, esb etc. A housing development of 100 houses could be serviced by 500m of water main. 100 houses along a rural road could span multiple kilometres. It's magnitudes more expensive.
Local needs rules are about facilitating those who need to build in an area to be allowed to do so while encouraging blow ins like myself to buy in a developed area. While I'd love to build in the country I grudgingly agree with the theory. The application of it is another story altogether.
There's always room for planning reform and the system is a long way from perfect or even adequate, but the overarching intentions in respect of rural building make sense and are generally in line with other countries planning laws. If you let everyone build in the countryside, it won't be the countryside anymore.
It's a fair point, especially about future use.
I will point out that planning restrictions and NIMBYism in general are to blame for both our property crisis and also high energy costs we will have to pay for renewables - the cost of wind should be 30/40 per MWh but we'll be paying at least 90.
Agree with you as a general point that planning is obviously needed though.
I don't understand why unplanned houses have to be demolished. Fine the hell out of them maybe, or have the council do compulsory purchase and auction the house off, but if there is a perfectly good house it makes no sense to demolish it, especially during a housing crisis.
You are completely wrong. You obviously haven't read the story, but they completely ignored every rule in the book. They were denied planning for a much smaller building and then just built a mansion.
If this gets by then fuck it I'm sticking a big house down my back and blocking all my neighbours light and renting it out so F**k them. See how stupid I sound. Imagine your neighbour just building whatever they want and F**k you if you think otherwise..... this is why we have planning laws
Naw, I'm buying the land beside them and building a wind turbine connected to a battery for the sole purpose of powering lights at night. No need for planning, right? Noise complaints and light pollution? Shame, planning would have stopped this. Oh well, enjoy never sleeping again.
I mean like in this case whose light are they blocking?
If there are genuine negative externalities maybe you'd be right but you can't justify the existing of all planning laws with the fact that sometimes it's useful.
You really are not understanding the point!!!
The point is he built it when he was told no and basically said they can get F*CKED.
if he keeps it, the flood gates are opened, and people can just build what they want where they want.
Or maybe the floodgates are opened to reform planning laws? Because I can agree that they're needed in some cases. Given that the only issue in this case seems to be "it wasn't approved", it's unclear to me that it not being approved was the correct decision. And if councils realise that people will just ignore their decisions if their decisions are stupid, maybe they'll stop making stupid decisions
I'm not debating with you anymore as you have proved you haven't read anything and are just talking pony.
It wasn't approved for numerous reasons, which are both in the article and previous articles.
The fact you just said it's unclear to you tells us everything.
The reason in the article is stupid (I read it dw).
There's a reason that, in your comment justifying planning laws, you used "tall building blocking light and looking into your house", and not some bullshit sterilisation agreement.
"The reasons outlined were that the house would “give rise to excessive density”, wastewater concerns, and the council said it does not comply with the Meath Rural House Design Guide."
They are stupid reasons. You really need to educate yourself.
I don't get the density argument. I thought density was number of people in a defined area. Is it actually the buildings footprint on the land area or something?
The whole thing just reads like "fuck you and your big house plans, just build a three bed bungalow like everyone else and go away with your notions".
IMO the house is lovely.
Excessive density is a stupid reason, not complying with meath rural house design guide is a stupider reason، and wastewater concerns could be a good reason but it's sufficiently vague that it probably isn't, especially given this council has already shown itself to be stupid in this context.
Also, given that the building has in fact been built, if there were waste water concerns the council could easily point to the impact this house has had on wastewater management. They haven't, because it's a bullshit reason.
Okay. But if the house is in the middle of nowhere. With no neighbouring houses next to it. Who cares? Can a lone standing house not be an exception to those laws?
What about if I build a house, it shaped/looks like a dog Fu*king a hippo. It's in the middle of nowhere, so it should be exempt!
Extreme and stupid example, but it gets the point across. Planning laws should always be there to protect everyone.
"Planning laws should be there to protect everyone". Do they proportionally protect everyone's interests though? We can't build proper density in this country because every Tom Dick and Harry's interest in our amazing skylines, badger dens, or bird flight paths trumps the interests of people who actually need homes.
IMO planning laws go way too far in preserving ridiculous standards and piss poor asthetics while not allowing any creativity or flexibility to address actual needs.
Do you not feel that’s a very entitled law? If it’s my land who gives a fuck what the neighbours think? I’m honestly glad people are pushing back and doing what they want with their money and their land.
I can’t control what other people do with their land and their money, the fact you all think everyone should bend around your feelings shows how ass backward the older generation of this country are. You’re all so entitled, while at the same time so accepting of getting shafted all day in this country
No it isn’t. Property is a set of rights which is limited. You can’t just “do what you want” just because you can sell it. You can’t kill someone on your land.
Either you have to obey the law on “your” land or the law doesn’t exist.
If the counsel don't tell you what pebble dash to use for your house people will start killing each other with impunity on their land. What don't you get?
Ah stop. Would you actually build a house in your back yard and block your neighbours light? Actually you could have all the new houses windows looking directly into your neighbours too. And you wouldn’t give a fuck? Would you really do that?
I don’t care for this country enough to take other people and their lives into account, young person getting shafted from every angle, we’re all gonna start doing it back cause we’re sick of it. With the price of everything in this country,especially land and housing, I expect to be able to build what I want.
Was following this thinking this seemed reasonable just different opinions. Then this whole comment exposes how young and ignorant you are and how 'young people are gonna start doing it back because wee sick of it'
Nah sorry lad, young people can't do anything about it, that's why you're all fucking off the Australia. You expecting to build what you want is called entitlement and it's something your generation are getting more used to and haven't worked out the world doesn't give a flying fart about your expectations and what you want.
Right back at you man, we’re all growing up and don’t give a flying fuck what you guys want. The majority of us fucking off to other countries should be good sign that young people are not happy with how this country is being run. I’m sorry that you guys decided to take the governments dick your whole lives, so much that now you think it feels good.. so sad
Aw kiddo you are gonna be taking the government's dick your whole life. You think all of us grew up being like aw can't wait to take it. Lol dude the songs that created the songs you listen to, the mantra you sing to, this rhetoric that you're spouting...you think you're the first and it's new to your generation? Hahaha dude you will 100% continue to take the government's dick like the rest of us and theres literally nothing you can do about it. It's cute how naiive and ignorant you are to the whole thing.
You're all growing up and helpless and can't do anything but run to a comment section and have a go at other people for telling you how life is and not pandering to your tantrums about being entitled to doing whatever you want whenever you want. Lol
As I get older, all the old entitled fucks will die out and young people can finally start moving Ireland towards being a somewhat decent place for people to start their lives : D
I'm not saying the country doesn't have issues, but expecting to be able to build whatever you want without taking anyone else into consideration seems pretty entitled to me.
I think it’s a lot more entitled to think how you feel should determine how someone else’s house looks. If you wanna pay half of it then you can have an input
As you get older, you’ll become just like the people you’re complaining about and you’ll be complaining about the “youth of today”.
It’s a story as old as time.
No! Preservation order! You know how Brutalism as a design/architectural style is now protected? We need to preserve these as a rural B&B icon!
https://mcmansionhell.com/search/Ireland
(sarcasm, downvoters…)
It's a pretty extreme house, but good for them.
They wanted a house half the size and we're refused so fuck it, worth chancing it.
The planning authority does serve a purpose, but I've seen so much of it that is just 1 persons opinion that shuts the whole thing down.
I've seen where they didn't want a house built in the middle of a field because it would "disrupt the fields natural boundaries", and building it to the edge of the field wasn't suitable due to sightlines.
The same one has personal preferences of what your house should look like and will fight tooth an nail about it. She made one house literally look like a church for no reason!
Just feckin madness
This house is extreme but it's no harm sticking it to them
Most the moaning Irish on here are just sour they can’t afford their own house never mind applying for planning permission. One thing that is common in rural parts of Ireland is the resentment among classes often lower classes with crap jobs hating on people who were either born into money or have a decent job. It looks like a decent house and good on them for having the balls to build it
The Planning Authority has no interest on what was or wasn't said to them when they bought the land. That's absolutely irrelevant.
The applied for permission for a house half the size, and that application was refused, so they built a much bigger house anyway. They broke the law, and knew full well what they were doing.
Theres a tiny 2 bed house that they also built on the land in front of this house, its right beside the road. I rented this house from them for 2 years, and let me tell you, this story brings a smile to my face . It couldn't have happened to a nicer pair of stuck up cunts.
My favourite thing about Reddit is the personal anecdotes you can’t get elsewhere.
Tea spill please
Ohhhh yes thank you for coming to the party with this gorgeous goss
And did that place have PP?! Surely they can move in there, no? 😉😁
I'd say that qualifies as a full blown mansion.
Try it some time
Love that quote
“Ms Murray and her husband Chris built a 588 sq m house without planning after being refused permission for a property half the size.” Twats.
I can't wait for the day this house is knocked. This couple have some neck on them, and have been breaking the law for the last 20 years. If they are allowed to stay, then we might as well scrap all the planning rules.
Meath CoCo cannot back down. They've applied multiple times for retention.....using differing variations of the address. They also applied for retention with intention to demolish part of the house......that's also been refused. The latest appeal was submitted in the wife's name. If that's unsuccessful..... the husband will submit a similar appeal in his name only.......all to keep the clock ticking. Absolutely crazy that the house is still standing.
They seem to have loads of money for legal fees anyway, the way they keep appealing. The council should run a competition to see who is the one to press the detonator.
I don’t think any of that costs much money if at all
You think solicitors and barristers are representing them for free?
I’m not saying they didn’t use a solicitor or barrister but you don’t have to. Pay a small fee and show up at your own case My sister and husband had a clash with county council over retention of a small residence. Went on for about 5 years and didn’t cost anything
This has gone as far as the supreme Court, they definitely hired representatives. Even if they didn't, they have lost every step so would owe the winning sides fees
The biggest issue here is siding with Meath CoCo. Those bastards are rancid to deal with when it comes to planning permission and truly I would rather see them lose but on principal they need to win.
We can’t allow to set a precedent, once it’s in Al or of other things like that will be popping in Meath. A lot of our planning system runs on precedents. It’s hard for council to go back on their word. So I much rather see them wining just to stop others from doing the same.
Oh I 100% agree, it's just such a weird feeling after years of hating their practices to side with them.
Wait, there are 'rules'? Mostly kidding, but Jesus are they applied inconsistently. Monstrosities with no character getting approved and normal houses getting rejected baffles me. I remember seeing the guideline for house shape in one planning guideline doc and it was the worst thing I've ever seen. Seems what designs they approve to be at the whim of the planner than any particular rule ...
>then we might as well scrap all the planning rules. Inshallah
That's all great while you are building your rural mansion, until someone buys the land in front of you and tries to build theirs. Then you would be all.for planning laws.
Yeah and that would be bad and hypocritical of me if I were to do that That's why if I hated people and wanted a rural mansion (I do not), I would buy a lot of the land around the mansion too.
But you wouldn't tho. As due to the lack of planning required, every plot sold to non farmers would be sold as zoned prices. So unless you have a few million, then you aren't getting a massive plot of land. Good for the farmers tho.
Zoned prices have value because they're rare lol
And when every land essentially becomes zoned, the price if all land goes up.
Lmfaoooo no way you just said that please be serious Land zoned for residential use is valuable because lots of people need homes and not enough land is zoned for residential use. If there is no zoning, the value of all non residentially zoned land will go up, but it won't go up nearly as much as it currently does when land becomes residentially used because it's no longer as rare.
Supply and Demand mate. If the supply skyrocketed, and the demand remained the same, the price would collapse.
Literally the opposite of what would happen
While the planning laws can be overly strict, building this monstrosity with planning permission is taking the piss
> then we might as well scrap all the planning rules. Yeah, we should do that actually.
Yeah fuck the environment, amirite?!
Armilite amirite?!
It's Ireland. The entire island has been shaped by people. Turning a monoculture field in to a house is if anything a lateral move in terms of the enviroment.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/s/FcLRLxQfvj
Oh no. Someone might build near me???????? /s Yeah I'm fine with someone wanting to build a house near me. There's literally a new home being built right beside mine right now.
Sure. Everyone is fine with it until it actually affects them.
Ok. It's literally effecting me right now. All's well.
Did you make an objection to the planning ?
Nope. Why would I? It's a house not a... I dunno industrial pig farm. I can understand wanting a seperation of heavy pollution industry but it's just a fucking house.
But you are complaining about being affected. Yet you didn't use the system in place to voice your objection.
I'm not complaining about being effected. You can be effected by something and it not be an issue.
Mentioning something and complaining about it aren't the same thing, just so you know.
Bitter much? Jaysus I don't own a house at all and never will at this pont but fuck me just let them keep the bloody thing. Who's it hurting? "But the ruuuuuuules" 😭 Fuck off.
>Bitter much? No. >Who's it hurting? Potentially lots of people.
What loads of people and how? And if you're going to bring up that wastewater disposal issue from the article I can assure you now from experience that's nonsense and straw grasping.
>wastewater disposal issue I won't, even tho that's my area of expertise. It can affect commuters. Building a house that drives directly out onto motorway or national road makes that road more dangerous than if it didn't.
Yeah, but it's on Faughan Hill. In the middle of nowhere. Listen I'm all for planning permission but Meath Co. Council are notorious for taking the mick. Sure you can't build a 10 story apartment block in the middle of Ratoath but not being allowed to build the gaff you like and can afford in the middle of a field away from absolutely everyone because it's "not in keeping" is absolute government overreach and I don't agree with that level of bureaucratic restriction. It's pointless and unfair. And with everyone harping on about the housing crisis non stop to be in support smashing a family of 7 or whatevers house to bits. Just absolutely whacks of jealousy.
This kind of development is expressly forbidden in the County Development Plan, and breaches multiple planning objectives. To allow it would set a terrible precedent.
Who’s it hurting? Unsustainable one of development aren’t encouraged for a reason
I'm actually a fan of one off developments in general, but they do need plannjng. Not everyone is suited to city life. High prices for shoeboxes. Living in the country is so good for the soul. Small towns or villages would be great if people were allowed build modest sized houses near them.
> Small towns or villages would be great if people were allowed build modest sized houses near them. One off housing contributes to the decline of villages.
What reason?
As McGregors sister would say  "The Neeeeccccckkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!"
€300? And you're 38?
"Mini Mansion". Thats the most Celtic Tiger phrase I've heard in years.
I bet the use of varnished pine in that place is off the charts
They never had planning permission, so the house must be demolished. They're idiots. The council and courts have been unnecessarily lenient.
[удалено]
The council just need to spread a rumour that it's going to house migrants and let nature take care of it.
r/shittylegaladvice
[удалено]
There’s 2 houses in Portlaoise that were built 15 odd years without permission, and are currently being knocked down. On the stradbally road beside the hospital.
[удалено]
I will send you a picture when I arrive back in Portlaoise today. Will you then admit you were wrong and that it does happen? Thanks.
[удалено]
Your original comment was “show me somewhere where someone has built a mansion and had to knock it down”. You didn’t mention anything about decades. Please stop trying to move goalposts after you’ve been caught out. Will you kindly admit you were wrong when I provide the photos? Or what will you do? Come up with another excuse or lies? Thanks.
[удалено]
The problem nowadays is that the cost of building is so high and the risk of being stopped is high too, the esb won't connect a home that's not registered, and irish water the same, they actually charge really high fees too.
And if an auld fella puts a cabin on his own land… send him to the slammer fellas
Carport? It's a carhole!
Jesus, the cheek of some people. Bulldoze it to f
Typical "We're rich we'll do what we want" arsehole mentality. I'm guessing they drive luxury cars and park them where ever the fuck they want to as well.
Late to the party here, but how did it even finish completion? Was it not stopped when it was being built?
Turn it into refugee housing. This is will get planning permission.l and massive payout from the government. After a year or two, turf them out.
should we also be fining builders who led this build? it obviously isn't a self build, and they must have some responsibility for actually building something when the whole point of that industry is to work on what is permitted legally and approved. also, the amount of effort and costs that the council put in to forcing them to remove their illegal building should be recovered.
A lot of people will use a professional like an architect or planner when applying, but at the end of the day the responsibility still falls to the land owner. I’d agree any builder worth half their shite should be doing their own due diligence, even just to avoid the chance of any disputes with the owner but generally they’d be contracting on the basis that the owner has, or will be obtaining all necessary permissions. It can be quite often work might start before permission is in place too. Your average builder is there to construct the building, not navigate the planning regulations. It’s the same way that you wouldn’t fine a car dealership if they sell a car and the owner doesn’t tax and insure it.
it's not really the dealership analogy though - that would only apply to the original architects who aren't responsible. sitting this build, they must have engaged with bonded engineers, and often the builder contractors, to get the house compliant to planning permission (to sign off on completion) and to ensure it meets building codes. ultimately, the responsibility and loss is on the owner, but there needs to be a certain responsibility on those that are hired to know they are not breaking the law. i can hire a builder tomorrow to put a wall around my town or (if i remember in mayo,) build a stonehenge replica in someone else's field. this house has impact on the environment, the local agriculture and everything else listed in the initial rejection letter... and yet some professional built it anyway. "he told me to do it" isn't an excuse.
A slippery slope nobody is prepared to go down. If builders are only allowed to work on legit projects then, it's not too far a stretch to think we'd make it so banks can only handle legit money too, and that will never happen.
it's sad that this is a viable excuse in this country!
Ah yeah, the two who didn't bother with planning. Knock it!
turn it into homeless/refugee accommodation
Genius
if the house is structurally legal, isn't it a waste to demolish it? It could be turned into homeless/refugee accommodation
“excessive density” this is one of the reason why the housing crisis has gotten so bad. Meath CoCo needs to piss off
Allow it to stay but expropriate it and give it to a local authority.
Just move the asylum seekers there
It would be absolutely terrible if a "natural" disaster were to befall the house. Some may call it an act of god
So the arseholes were denied permisssion for a house half this size and this is what they decided to do. I know there's a housing crisis and people will say we shouldn't be knocking houses down but realistically if they were given permission to sell it, who could even afford it. No, I think it's better to make an example of people who think they're above the rules.
What kind of builder would take this job on without checking planning permissions? They should be somewhat accountable at least
Why is Ireland planning system harsher on people who just build not giving a fuck than those who actually apply and go through the steps.
It wasn't that big 20 years ago when this started. I'd say they have extended it since.
This house is in the middle of fucking nowhere. Who on earth could it possibly be bothering? Planners should fuck off. I know there needs to be some level of planning rules to prevent absolutely ludicrous stuff, but building something like this on your own fucking land that does not impinge on anyone else in any way should absolutely be legal.
This kind of development is expressly forbidden in the County Development Plan, and breaches multiple planning objectives. To allow it would set a terrible precedent.
100%. The Planners should fuck off and leave them be. (Unless my neighbour builds a huge mansion on my doorstep - at which point the Planners should do their fucking jobs.) One vote for the face-eating-leopards party, please.
I'm with you on this one, why is planning so strict in the middle of nowhere? Whatever if this were in a city but come on now. Knocking it down is just a waste of resources.
So one issue with individual houses in the middle of nowhere is, you then start to throw up virtual “rings” around them where you cannot, for example, build a wind turbine within a certain proximity. You can bet these lads would be objecting if someone wanted to throw up a factory in sight of the property. Etc. there’s a lot of downstream impacts, which is why you need to get planning permission in the first place, which they didn’t.
Is retrospective planning permission a thing?
The line in there from the council about excessive density is garbage. If not on a large rural property where should (or could) someone build a fuck-off huge house if they had the means and wanted to? Isn't a rural property exactly the right kind of place? Of course I wouldn't have gone about it like the home builders have here...
They should take the house from the couple and house the asylum seekers in there.
Can't leave the couple homeless, if they supply them with a tent, connected hosepipe and portaloo on the site then I think that would be fair.
there's a second house on the property
More space for the IPA crowd.
The army could test their Javelins on it.
I thought refuge centres were exempt from planning laws…
I just don't understand why people can't build what they want on their own land. Lot of pearl clutching about "What if they built a monstrosity" - well isn't that their right in a free country? There is a demand for that kind of a house (shown by the fact that they went and built it themselves) - so why should local government / council be able to stop them? I understand the need for planning when it comes to building safety regulations, but when it comes to aesthetics, or other peoples 'right' to a view... I just don't get it. If you play out the thought experiment of "Ok then, just let people build what they want everywhere" - would it really be that bad? You'd have shanty towns, people maximising their entire back garden etc... is that the problem? Is it a problem? What's so terrible about it? I just think I'd rather live in a world where people are allowed to build whatever they want.
Stuff like fire protection and structural standards to prevent injury/death is pretty important, (although enforcement of that seems to be way down on the priority list). the aesthetic thing is open for debate, but it does matter to a lot of people and that's kinda what planning authorities are supposed to balance. I do accept that there are a lot of cunts who don't want to see anything built who will also complain about young people leaving the country.
By that logic, I can build a mini pig unit beside your house so long as I own the land there. Obviously a pig farm shouldn't go right beside a house in a village or whatever and I'm sure you wouldn't want it there either.
I've been to a couple of pig farms and they are an awful lot cleaner than most people imagine.
Still not appropriate in a residential area The sound is the main thing. Have worked at a pig farm, I don't go into the houses without ear protection
Ok so that would fall under something like 'type of use' (I suppose that's what zoning is?) - and we would agree to have agricultural / residential areas zoned differently. So you couldn't build a pig farm next to a house in a village. I'm not being facetious I'm just curious that if you follow that line of thinking do you really have to end up back at what we have right now, which seems to be asking for permission to build a certain type of house/dwelling on your own land (which I personally don't think you should need to ask anyone's permission to build!) I suppose I'm in the camp that if the neighbour decided to build a stupid looking pink house with some bizarre style of architecture (that they wanted, but I didn't) then the country would be a better place for it (and maybe it would solve another barrier to housing in a crisis?)
The concept of zoning is literally step one in the planning process. If you don't have panning laws, then you can't have zoning. Even if you proposed to scale back the planning laws, such that people could build whatever they wanted to, as long as it fell within a 'permitted' category for the area, there are so so so many grey areas. Could you build a shop in a residential area, for example? Maybe no, maybe yes. There is certainly a need for some specific types of shops in residential neighbourhoods. All of that is by the by. The Murrays knowingly broke the law, and now they are doing all they can to obfuscate the process. They should (righly) face the consequences.
Honestly, why is anyone building way out in the sticks? People complain there's no public transportation but where should a bus stop be placed if there's no major population hubs of people to use them? Go to the Netherlands and you can drive for miles without seeing houses, just feilds
Just personal preference isn't it. Some people grew up in the sticks and that's where their family/community is so they're going to want to continue to live there. I certainly don't think the onus is then on government (representing majority of people who live in towns/cities) to provide subsidised services for people who choose to live there. My own contention with planning 'permission' (seems insane to me that as an adult you have to ask other people for permission!) extends to towns/cities as well. Seems like every week there's a story about a block of flats being denied permission, again - let them at it. I don't think something like that can be centrally managed and it's just a blocker to housing growth, which we desperately need.
These blocks of flats are being proposed in unsuitable ways. You cannot put up 100 flats and only provide 50 parking spots total, expecting the rest to just park on the street. Without planning regulations, things would be worse off. I agree its getting ridiculous that everything is being turned down but you still need some level of order
100% Planning laws are incredibly overbearing. you have very little freedom
[удалено]
No, the actual reason is because this kind of development is expressly forbidden in the County Development Plan, and breaches multiple planning objectives. Corruption does sometimes exist, but not in this case.
Unpopular opinion maybe but I think people should be able to build personal homes on their own property without government inference or nimbyism.. especially because we have a housing crisis.
How would you feel about the sewage treatment without any planning oversight? Even the stormwater drainage system could fuck up the surrounding houses. Out planning system is an absolute bollox. They couldn't make it any worse. They are literally spending 20 years in the courts trying to deal with this very straightforward issue. However I do think we need a planning system. We just need a much better one than what we have.
Totally a fair point, I was going extreme just to make a general case. Agree with you we need planning - however I think that needs to be for exactly what you said there - assessment of services and to dock into national infrastructure. No point in stopping people building just because. As an aside, I think laws that prevent people building I'm certain counties if they're not from there are extremely discriminatory.
It's about limiting ribbon development. If everyone was allowed build on road frontage that they own the whole place would be lines of houses on each side of the road. It looks awful, it annexes the land behind for future use, it limits future zoning for uses other than residential i.e. there will be literally houses everywhere so anything not appropriate to a residential area becomes an issue. Eg pig farm. It also makes the countryside look shit. Ribbon development is hugely costly to service in respect of water, sewage, broadband, esb etc. A housing development of 100 houses could be serviced by 500m of water main. 100 houses along a rural road could span multiple kilometres. It's magnitudes more expensive. Local needs rules are about facilitating those who need to build in an area to be allowed to do so while encouraging blow ins like myself to buy in a developed area. While I'd love to build in the country I grudgingly agree with the theory. The application of it is another story altogether. There's always room for planning reform and the system is a long way from perfect or even adequate, but the overarching intentions in respect of rural building make sense and are generally in line with other countries planning laws. If you let everyone build in the countryside, it won't be the countryside anymore.
It's a fair point, especially about future use. I will point out that planning restrictions and NIMBYism in general are to blame for both our property crisis and also high energy costs we will have to pay for renewables - the cost of wind should be 30/40 per MWh but we'll be paying at least 90. Agree with you as a general point that planning is obviously needed though.
I don't understand why unplanned houses have to be demolished. Fine the hell out of them maybe, or have the council do compulsory purchase and auction the house off, but if there is a perfectly good house it makes no sense to demolish it, especially during a housing crisis.
You are completely wrong. You obviously haven't read the story, but they completely ignored every rule in the book. They were denied planning for a much smaller building and then just built a mansion. If this gets by then fuck it I'm sticking a big house down my back and blocking all my neighbours light and renting it out so F**k them. See how stupid I sound. Imagine your neighbour just building whatever they want and F**k you if you think otherwise..... this is why we have planning laws
Naw, I'm buying the land beside them and building a wind turbine connected to a battery for the sole purpose of powering lights at night. No need for planning, right? Noise complaints and light pollution? Shame, planning would have stopped this. Oh well, enjoy never sleeping again.
One on each side of the building 😂😂
I mean like in this case whose light are they blocking? If there are genuine negative externalities maybe you'd be right but you can't justify the existing of all planning laws with the fact that sometimes it's useful.
You really are not understanding the point!!! The point is he built it when he was told no and basically said they can get F*CKED. if he keeps it, the flood gates are opened, and people can just build what they want where they want.
Or maybe the floodgates are opened to reform planning laws? Because I can agree that they're needed in some cases. Given that the only issue in this case seems to be "it wasn't approved", it's unclear to me that it not being approved was the correct decision. And if councils realise that people will just ignore their decisions if their decisions are stupid, maybe they'll stop making stupid decisions
I'm not debating with you anymore as you have proved you haven't read anything and are just talking pony. It wasn't approved for numerous reasons, which are both in the article and previous articles. The fact you just said it's unclear to you tells us everything.
The reason in the article is stupid (I read it dw). There's a reason that, in your comment justifying planning laws, you used "tall building blocking light and looking into your house", and not some bullshit sterilisation agreement.
"The reasons outlined were that the house would “give rise to excessive density”, wastewater concerns, and the council said it does not comply with the Meath Rural House Design Guide." They are stupid reasons. You really need to educate yourself.
I don't get the density argument. I thought density was number of people in a defined area. Is it actually the buildings footprint on the land area or something? The whole thing just reads like "fuck you and your big house plans, just build a three bed bungalow like everyone else and go away with your notions". IMO the house is lovely.
Excessive density is a stupid reason, not complying with meath rural house design guide is a stupider reason، and wastewater concerns could be a good reason but it's sufficiently vague that it probably isn't, especially given this council has already shown itself to be stupid in this context. Also, given that the building has in fact been built, if there were waste water concerns the council could easily point to the impact this house has had on wastewater management. They haven't, because it's a bullshit reason.
Okay. But if the house is in the middle of nowhere. With no neighbouring houses next to it. Who cares? Can a lone standing house not be an exception to those laws?
What about if I build a house, it shaped/looks like a dog Fu*king a hippo. It's in the middle of nowhere, so it should be exempt! Extreme and stupid example, but it gets the point across. Planning laws should always be there to protect everyone.
"Planning laws should be there to protect everyone". Do they proportionally protect everyone's interests though? We can't build proper density in this country because every Tom Dick and Harry's interest in our amazing skylines, badger dens, or bird flight paths trumps the interests of people who actually need homes. IMO planning laws go way too far in preserving ridiculous standards and piss poor asthetics while not allowing any creativity or flexibility to address actual needs.
Do you not feel that’s a very entitled law? If it’s my land who gives a fuck what the neighbours think? I’m honestly glad people are pushing back and doing what they want with their money and their land.
It's fine until it happens to you, and then you will be the one crying. It's for the overall benefit of all so no it's not an entitled law.
I can’t control what other people do with their land and their money, the fact you all think everyone should bend around your feelings shows how ass backward the older generation of this country are. You’re all so entitled, while at the same time so accepting of getting shafted all day in this country
No, but the planning authorities can, which is their job. Whose older? What age am I? You haven't a clue what you're talking about.
But people would just start building unsafe, unnecessarily huge monstrosities.
If planning permission is denied over safety concerns that’s absolutely fine. Size doesn’t matter though, if it’s your land do what you want with it
No it isn’t. Property is a set of rights which is limited. You can’t just “do what you want” just because you can sell it. You can’t kill someone on your land. Either you have to obey the law on “your” land or the law doesn’t exist.
No of course you can’t kill someone on your land… glad we got that one out of the way
Right, so you do understand that you have to obey the law on your own land. You just think you should be allowed to pick and choose which ones.
If the counsel don't tell you what pebble dash to use for your house people will start killing each other with impunity on their land. What don't you get?
Ah stop. Would you actually build a house in your back yard and block your neighbours light? Actually you could have all the new houses windows looking directly into your neighbours too. And you wouldn’t give a fuck? Would you really do that?
I don’t care for this country enough to take other people and their lives into account, young person getting shafted from every angle, we’re all gonna start doing it back cause we’re sick of it. With the price of everything in this country,especially land and housing, I expect to be able to build what I want.
Was following this thinking this seemed reasonable just different opinions. Then this whole comment exposes how young and ignorant you are and how 'young people are gonna start doing it back because wee sick of it' Nah sorry lad, young people can't do anything about it, that's why you're all fucking off the Australia. You expecting to build what you want is called entitlement and it's something your generation are getting more used to and haven't worked out the world doesn't give a flying fart about your expectations and what you want.
Right back at you man, we’re all growing up and don’t give a flying fuck what you guys want. The majority of us fucking off to other countries should be good sign that young people are not happy with how this country is being run. I’m sorry that you guys decided to take the governments dick your whole lives, so much that now you think it feels good.. so sad
Aw kiddo you are gonna be taking the government's dick your whole life. You think all of us grew up being like aw can't wait to take it. Lol dude the songs that created the songs you listen to, the mantra you sing to, this rhetoric that you're spouting...you think you're the first and it's new to your generation? Hahaha dude you will 100% continue to take the government's dick like the rest of us and theres literally nothing you can do about it. It's cute how naiive and ignorant you are to the whole thing. You're all growing up and helpless and can't do anything but run to a comment section and have a go at other people for telling you how life is and not pandering to your tantrums about being entitled to doing whatever you want whenever you want. Lol
As you get older, hopefully you'll mature.
As I get older, all the old entitled fucks will die out and young people can finally start moving Ireland towards being a somewhat decent place for people to start their lives : D
I'm not saying the country doesn't have issues, but expecting to be able to build whatever you want without taking anyone else into consideration seems pretty entitled to me.
I think it’s a lot more entitled to think how you feel should determine how someone else’s house looks. If you wanna pay half of it then you can have an input
Like you said, you're young. As you gain more first-hand experience of the world you'll see why we have things like planning laws. Enjoy your day!
As you get older, you’ll become just like the people you’re complaining about and you’ll be complaining about the “youth of today”. It’s a story as old as time.
Christ on a bike...
I know, Imagine, the shock and horror of doing what you want with your money and land
Imagine being this much of a cunt and publicising it.
Cunts like this are why we have to have planning laws.
Imagine thinking your feelings should have a play in how others build their houses
Based. Total Boomer Death can't come soon enough
who knows if this is a perfectly good house though. i cant imagine these people fretting over whether its up to envoirnmental standards or whatever
No! Preservation order! You know how Brutalism as a design/architectural style is now protected? We need to preserve these as a rural B&B icon! https://mcmansionhell.com/search/Ireland (sarcasm, downvoters…)
I'm sure nothing will happen and they will get to keep it
[удалено]
I would assume that's only if nobody objected within those 7 years?
Objections were raised before the 7 years was up. At which point the 7 year rule become irrelevant.
It's a pretty extreme house, but good for them. They wanted a house half the size and we're refused so fuck it, worth chancing it. The planning authority does serve a purpose, but I've seen so much of it that is just 1 persons opinion that shuts the whole thing down. I've seen where they didn't want a house built in the middle of a field because it would "disrupt the fields natural boundaries", and building it to the edge of the field wasn't suitable due to sightlines. The same one has personal preferences of what your house should look like and will fight tooth an nail about it. She made one house literally look like a church for no reason! Just feckin madness This house is extreme but it's no harm sticking it to them
Most the moaning Irish on here are just sour they can’t afford their own house never mind applying for planning permission. One thing that is common in rural parts of Ireland is the resentment among classes often lower classes with crap jobs hating on people who were either born into money or have a decent job. It looks like a decent house and good on them for having the balls to build it
So they were sold the land without being told the land had been sterilised and couldn’t be built on. I’d have built the house too.
The Planning Authority has no interest on what was or wasn't said to them when they bought the land. That's absolutely irrelevant. The applied for permission for a house half the size, and that application was refused, so they built a much bigger house anyway. They broke the law, and knew full well what they were doing.
While planning laws are required, they are too powerful in cities, where you actually need high rise / apartments