Grange Hill Rathfarnham

Billy86

Rackstar wrote: »

It's more like a 40 minute walk to Balally.

If we double your 40 minute drive into the city centre to 80 minutes, that is also a lot more realistic.

If it takes you 40 minutes to walk from the back of Kingston to Balally, you're a slow walker.

Might take a little longer on the way back mind, but going mainly downhill in the mornings is always a bonus as far as I'm concerned!

Rackstar

Billy86 wrote: »

If it takes you 40 minutes to walk from the back of Kingston to Balally, you're a slow walker.

Might take a little longer on the way back mind, but going mainly downhill in the mornings is always a bonus as far as I'm concerned!

Closer to 40, I'd imagine it's 35 minutes. Google maps puts it at 38 via Kingston.

cailinanmaith

Rackstar wrote: »

It's more like a 40 minute walk to Balally.

If we double your 40 minute drive into the city centre to 80 minutes, that is also a lot more realistic.

I drive it every day, and it's never taken me 80 minutes! Nor 40 minutes to walk to Ballaly! But no need to justify myself to begrudgery!

cailinanmaith

Billy86 wrote: »

If it takes you 40 minutes to walk from the back of Kingston to Balally, you're a slow walker.

Might take a little longer on the way back mind, but going mainly downhill in the mornings is always a bonus as far as I'm concerned!

Agreed! Very funny how people liking to slate a development on here!

Rackstar

cailinanmaith wrote: »

I drive it every day, and it's never taken me 80 minutes! Nor 40 minutes to walk to Ballaly! But no need to justify myself to begrudgery!

No begrudgery here, there's nothing to be envious about. Merely pointing out that your times are out.

cailinanmaith

Rackstar wrote: »

No begrudgery here, there's nothing to be envious about. Merely pointing out that your times are out.

From someone that drives it every day for 6 months I think I should know how long it takes me to drive to work and back home. Not even when the luas strikes has it ever taken anywhere the time you quote. That's fine well no need for the negativity. Have a nice day 😀

Dearg81

cailinanmaith wrote: »

Time to put the record straight. Firstly Google any developers name who built houses in the boom and you will get negative stories. Thankfully there are now strict regulations in place to put a stop to any mal practice. If a fire occurred in any development that was built during the boom I believe at least half would have the same issue as the news article feature detailed in this thread.

These are timber frame terraced houses built by a developer with a bad history. It sounds like your house is safe as you obviously did your research but people buying now are more than entitled to be suspicious all things considered.

2RockMountain

SarahMollie wrote: »

I think you're confusing what a purchasers solicitor/surveyor is expected to do, versus the architect/engineer who is signing off on the development as a whole is meant to do. Obviously the latter should be well aware of whats going on behind the walls and should be monitoring the build periodically as it progresses. And yes, I agree that they should have to answer if they sign off without doing their due diligence.

A vendors independent surveyor will likely only be on site once, and they property is likely to be finished at that point. Therefore, they can look for visual defects, like cracks in the walls, irregularity with the brickwork, gaps in the party walls in the attics etc, but not much else. They're not going to be permitted to start poking holes in walls, as the purchaser doesn't own the property yet so they can't ask for this to be done. A survey typically costs €350-500, so there is no way anything invasive can be done for that money.

A solicitor will probably tell you that a survey is a good idea for your peace of mind, but I don't believe they're under any obligation to push the idea. Its totally up to the purchaser and their own common sense. They certainly don't have to audit the survey itself once completed, nor do they have to stand over what it says.

A solicitor would only be liable if they missed something legal, like not pointing out a right of way across your property, or if they represented something as freehold when it was leasehold for example.

No, I'm not confused at all - I understand the difference between the Assigned Certifier under BCAR regulations and pre-purchase survey. However, most house-buyers don't understand the difference.

In the pre-BCAR days, many solicitors were failing to ensure that their clients had a clue about what was going on, or understood the limitations of a pre-purchase survey. The end result was clients who bought in Priory Hall or Longboat Quay. Those solicitors failed to protect their clients on the biggest purchase of their lives.

SarahMollie

2RockMountain wrote: »

No, I'm not confused at all - I understand the difference between the Assigned Certifier under BCAR regulations and pre-purchase survey. However, most house-buyers don't understand the difference.

In the pre-BCAR days, many solicitors were failing to ensure that their clients had a clue about what was going on, or understood the limitations of a pre-purchase survey. The end result was clients who bought in Priory Hall or Longboat Quay. Those solicitors failed to protect their clients on the biggest purchase of their lives.

Well then if you're not confused, your earlier posts certainly are. Your asserting that certain groups (surveyors/solicitors) have all these obligations that no one but you have put upon them.

Also, you're totally absolving buyers from needing to have any common sense. Anyone who doesnt know what a survey is really needs to do a bit more thinking before buying a house. Its buyer beware.

Facts are that a buyer survey/solicitor advise wouldnt have prevented those people from buying in Priory Hall etc. The only thing that would have prevented that terrible situation was a proper system of regulation and inspection. By the time the buyer comes along with their own experts, the flaws in those buildings were well hidden.

2RockMountain

SarahMollie wrote: »

Well then if you're not confused, your earlier posts certainly are. Your asserting that certain groups (surveyors/solicitors) have all these obligations that no one but you have put upon them.

Also, you're totally absolving buyers from needing to have any common sense. Anyone who doesnt know what a survey is really needs to do a bit more thinking before buying a house. Its buyer beware.

Facts are that a buyer survey/solicitor advise wouldnt have prevented those people from buying in Priory Hall etc. The only thing that would have prevented that terrible situation was a proper system of regulation and inspection. By the time the buyer comes along with their own experts, the flaws in those buildings were well hidden.

Two things might well have prevented buyers from buying death-traps:

1) If their own solicitor, who is supposed to be protecting their own interests, and giving an undertaking the the bank if the property is mortgaged, were to have clearly explained the risk they were taking in buying a property based on a non-intrusive survey, and

2) If their non-intrusive survey included a clear understanding of the limitations of that survey and the corresponding risks in non-technical language.

SarahMollie

2RockMountain wrote: »

Two things might well have prevented buyers from buying death-traps:

1) If their own solicitor, who is supposed to be protecting their own interests, and giving an undertaking the the bank if the property is mortgaged, were to have clearly explained the risk they were taking in buying a property based on a non-intrusive survey, and

2) If their non-intrusive survey included a clear understanding of the limitations of that survey and the corresponding risks in non-technical language.

1 thing that might have prevented it.

1. Proper building regulations and inspection of every site.

Are you seriously suggesting that every prospective buyer should be allowed knock holes in the property they're looking at? Because thats what you're saying in practical terms.

Trying to push the onus onto the solicitor does not prevent defective homes from being built, maybe rather that one individual might not buy one of them. Chances are someone else would though. Surely the best solution involves preventing such shoddy development in the first instance.

2RockMountain

SarahMollie wrote: »

1 thing that might have prevented it.

1. Proper building regulations and inspection of every site.

Are you seriously suggesting that every prospective buyer should be allowed knock holes in the property they're looking at? Because thats what you're saying in practical terms.

Trying to push the onus onto the solicitor does not prevent defective homes from being built, maybe rather that one individual might not buy one of them. Chances are someone else would though. Surely the best solution involves preventing such shoddy development in the first instance.

Yes, probably regs and inspection would have been great - but we all know that it wasn't the case at the time. So the solicitor couldn't change the system at that time - but what they could do is properly advise their clients as to the extent of the risk they were taking, and what they could do to minimise that risk.

SarahMollie

2RockMountain wrote: »

Yes, probably regs and inspection would have been great - but we all know that it wasn't the case at the time. So the solicitor couldn't change the system at that time - but what they could do is properly advise their clients as to the extent of the risk they were taking, and what they could do to minimise that risk.

I'm concsious that this is extremely off topic and I'm starting to think that maybe you've had an issue with a solicitor yourself since you feel so strongly about it.

Theres no point any anyone saying what should have been done as the past is past - all we can advocate for is how things should be done from now on. I still think you're trying to overreach on what a solicitor should be held liable for however.

There are many more developments in serious trouble around the country than just the ones in the news. Nothing bar serious regulation and inspections would have prevented this situation. They actually have quite a good system in NI which I believe we should replicate.

I'm on the OMC where I live and we've recently had to bring in a specialist firm to carry out some works that relate back to the construction. Now it was largely no big deal and the costs involved were low, and we managed to get it sorted at a relatively low cost and quite quickly, however our managing agent commented that she personally is involved with similar (and some more serious) issues at a number of other developments that they manage. The specialist firm are up to their eyes in work from developments accross the country.


The legacy issues are far greater than people realise as most OMCs try to keep them quiet and out of the newspapers, so that peoples asset values aren't demolished.

CanC

SarahMollie wrote: »

I'm not that aware of Hazelbrook, but from previously looking at Silverton, it seemed to be a more prestigious development, and the site looked more spaced out. Also, its actually in Rathfarnham, whilst GH is (although not technically) definitely in Ballinteer.

I can't seem to find much on the Silverton development & wondered if anyone knew anything about the development or the developers in particular? Also is there much noise from the m50 behind the development?

highly1111

CanC wrote: »

I can't seem to find much on the Silverton development & wondered if anyone knew anything about the development or the developers in particular? Also is there much noise from the m50 behind the development?

Developed by a company called city properties. Backed by a group of investors. They've already had a price drop after the first week of €30k. I'd say there'll be another price drop too. The show house is open on sat 12-2pm. The houses are fine - but gardens are very small, there's no storage and no visitor parking. The finish is no comparison in GH (in my opinion). Hazelbrook is a lovely development but was too expensive for us and the actual layout of the houses in GH suit us better with the second living room upstairs. If you want prices and a number for Silverton let me know and I'll send them on - will dig out the email.

cailinanmaith

CanC wrote: »

I can't seem to find much on the Silverton development & wondered if anyone knew anything about the development or the developers in particular? Also is there much noise from the m50 behind the development?

Silverton is developed by New Generation Homes. City Properties are the sales agents.

No noise from GH from inside the houses from the M50 surprisingly and thankfully.

cailinanmaith

Dearg81 wrote: »

These are timber frame terraced houses built by a developer with a bad history. It sounds like your house is safe as you obviously did your research but people buying now are more than entitled to be suspicious all things considered.

Of course they are but once the truth has been spoken on here from many residents, it appears others don't like to take it on board.

1owa

Looking at the property price register for Grange Hill - no two properties are listed for the same price?

03/06/2016 €506,607.93

19/05/2016 €502,202.00

04/05/2016 €650,000.00

14/04/2016 €616,740.00

02/03/2016 €605,000.00

13/01/2016 €519,823.79

08/12/2015 €540,000.00

27/11/2015 €511,000.00

20/11/2015 €497,797.00

12/11/2015 €533,040.00

21/10/2015 €620,000.00

Eric Cartman

morrga wrote: »

Yeah I cannot understand if a market exists out there for this type of product. I think ye have all summed it up pretty well. So I e mailed my 'interest' and got the following spin doctor response.

"Thank you for enquiring about our development at Grange Hill Rathfarnham D16

The first phase consists of 19 houses we will have these completed by early spring 2015 the overall site is 71 houses

We are currently selling off plans.

At present this is going very well and over the next couple of weeks we would hope to have phase one booked/sold

We will have a show house ready in about 8 weeks to show our clients

The prices are 4 bed mid terrace size 1900sqf are €620,000 4 bed end of terrace size 1900sqf are €635,000 [only 1 south facing garden left in this phase] and 5 bed semi-detached 2600sqf €740,000"

who in their right mind would pay almost 3/4 of a million for a 5 bedroom house thats still attached to another house. for that money a stones throw down the road you could have something with more square footage and nobody for at least 3 meters either side of you.

highly1111

1owa wrote: »

Looking at the property price register for Grange Hill - no two properties are listed for the same price?

03/06/2016 €506,607.93

19/05/2016 €502,202.00

04/05/2016 €650,000.00

14/04/2016 €616,740.00

02/03/2016 €605,000.00

13/01/2016 €519,823.79

08/12/2015 €540,000.00

27/11/2015 €511,000.00

20/11/2015 €497,797.00

12/11/2015 €533,040.00

21/10/2015 €620,000.00

These prices are excluding VAT which is why the numbers are unusual.

Also some people didn't avail of the 5% cashbook option post closing the contracts so paid less initially than others. Some people went for the higher mortgage and got their 5% back and others choose the smaller mortgage - hope that makes sense. Also former show houses are included there so they would have a different prices too.

Michael D Not Higgins

Eric Cartman wrote: »

who in their right mind would pay almost 3/4 of a million for a 5 bedroom house thats still attached to another house. for that money a stones throw down the road you could have something with more square footage and nobody for at least 3 meters either side of you.

Presumably, you get a better spec house, including A rated insulation and energy use.

Personally I agree with you and would rather pay the same amount for a better house I could upgrade later, but some people want a brand-new, move in ready house with the latest build quality.

selous

Two year old thread I know, but the first one is up for sale since they all sold originally.

http://www.daft.ie/dublin/houses-for-sale/rathfarnham/13-grange-hill-harolds-grange-road-rathfarnham-dublin-1721390/

Funny thing is when they were being sold first they were

Rathfarnham, Dublin 14.

now it's

Rathfarnham, Dublin 16.

But yet, the big old house that was there first with it's stables and big courtyard was.........

Sandyford, Dublin 18,

So you knock down a house in one area and build an estate, hey presto, it's moved two post codes and area, but if you look at their Eircode, it's still D18 ****.
Someone not doing their due diligence.

Sleeper12

Looks like they weren't over priced if this one goes for the asking price. Nice tidy profit

Billy86

selous wrote: »

So you knock down a house in one area and build an estate, hey presto, it's moved two post codes and area, but if you look at their Eircode, it's still D18 ****.
Someone not doing their due diligence.

Or possibly hoping others aren't so they can fleece them for a bit extra.

selous

Another one up for sale..

http://www.property.ie/property-for-sale/22-Grange-Hill-Harolds-Grange-Road-Rathfarnham-Dublin-16/1761974/

NinjaTruncs

I see that second one for sale has knocked €55K off it's asking price, which would bring it back down around the original asking price.

The rest of the land on the site is now for sale too, it'll be interesting to see what gets put in next door seeing as both this and Silverton struggled to sell.

selous

Victoria homes served with winding up petition.

https://www.businesspost.ie/business/victoria-homes-served-winding-petition-422978

seamus

A winding up petition is sometimes used to force payment when the company is messing around. They have to repay the debt within seven days or the court will force them into liquidation.

Can't read the article behind the paywall, so I don't know if it goes into more detail.

Humour Me

seamus wrote: »

A winding up petition is sometimes used to force payment when the company is messing around. They have to repay the debt within seven days or the court will force them into liquidation.

Can't read the article behind the paywall, so I don't know if it goes into more detail.

One of the subcontractors is owed €100k which according to the article has been disputed for a year.

selous

An old guy up that way said they were in court on Tuesday about it, but cant find anything anywhere about it. All the signs with their name on the hoarding came down a good while age (before August) now the unbuilt site is up for sale, E6.7million) so it shall remain 19 houses for the next while,
Sold at first as Rathfarnham D14, changed to 16, but eircodes are all D18XXXX,
Old house that was knocked used Sandyford D18, as all on that side, up to Silverton,