Pre 63s

Claw Hammer

In today's Irish Times there are numerous houses in Dublin set in units on the market. I counted 12 on one page alone. They are in the inner suburbs near the two canals. It was never the case before that so many of these type of property would come on the market at one time. It also seems likely that many of these properties will be converted to family homes. This will reduce the supply of rental accommodation even further and take many studios off the market permanently.
Ironically there is also an account in the same publication about the homeless shelter on Merchant's Quay which highlights the difficulties single homeless people have.
It seems absolutely ludicrous that , at a time of massive homelessness, reduced building and record high rents that existing accommodation is being liquidated.

riclad

Bedsits are now illegal.
So people may find it easier to just sell a house rather than
reduce the no of flats and put a bathroom in each flat.
The present tax system does nothing to encourage landlords to rent to
single people on rent allowance .
many landlord are getting out of the business ,
Rather than deal with the present tax system.

Claw Hammer

riclad wrote: »

Bedsits are now illegal.
So people may find it easier to just sell a house rather than
reduce the no of flats and put a bathroom in each flat.
The present tax system does nothing to encourage landlords to rent to
single people on rent allowance .
many landlord are getting out of the business ,
Rather than deal with the present tax system.

Bedsits are not illegal if they have their own internal bathroom.

quadrifoglio verde

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Bedsits are not illegal if they have their own internal bathroom.

Which most of these units don't have.

riclad

So every flat has to have one bathroom.
i Lived in a bedsit ,it was fine , there was a bathroom on each floor .
Putting in a bathroom is expensive in old buildings ,
it caused rents to go up.
It reduced the no of units on the market, it especially effected single
people on rent allowance .

davindub

do you think the governments priorities are affordable rent / house prices ? Or increasing regulations to remove affordable units in favor of expensive units which need to be built by their developer mates? (not a wild accusation, a tribunal into the property crash was critical of the closeness of government ministers and building developers, since then and recently we have seen increased building regulations, new incentives for buyers to purchase from developments of >20 homes, restriction of planning permission for one off builds/ rural houses = massive inflation in house prices = more pressure on rental)

Kings Inns or bust

davindub wrote: »

do you think the governments priorities are affordable rent / house prices ? Or increasing regulations to remove affordable units in favor of expensive units which need to be built by their developer mates? (not a wild accusation, a tribunal into the property crash was critical of the closeness of government ministers and building developers, since then and recently we have seen increased building regulations, new incentives for buyers to purchase from developments of >20 homes, restriction of planning permission for one off builds/ rural houses = massive inflation in house prices = more pressure on rental)

I honestly wish it was that contrived. To me it simply looks like the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

Barely Hedged

Claw Hammer wrote: »

In today's Irish Times there are numerous houses in Dublin set in units on the market. I counted 12 on one page alone. They are in the inner suburbs near the two canals. It was never the case before that so many of these type of property would come on the market at one time. It also seems likely that many of these properties will be converted to family homes. This will reduce the supply of rental accommodation even further and take many studios off the market permanently.
Ironically there is also an account in the same publication about the homeless shelter on Merchant's Quay which highlights the difficulties single homeless people have.
It seems absolutely ludicrous that , at a time of massive homelessness, reduced building and record high rents that existing accommodation is being liquidated.

It's all to do with regulations and improving accommodation standards and safety.

A lot of the pre 63 buildings are listed and to bring them up to fire regulation compliance, never mind all the other criteria, is simply impossible. As an example, in some listed Georgian buildings you can't touch/change the plasterwork on the ceilings so you can't fire proof it.

Imagine a fire ravaged a 4 storey over basement Georgian building in Mountjoy square killing 10-20 people. Wouldn't look great for the regulation setters if there were none in place

FishOnABike

davindub wrote: »

do you think the governments priorities are affordable rent / house prices ? Or increasing regulations to remove affordable units in favor of expensive units which need to be built by their developer mates? (not a wild accusation, a tribunal into the property crash was critical of the closeness of government ministers and building developers, since then and recently we have seen increased building regulations, new incentives for buyers to purchase from developments of >20 homes, restriction of planning permission for one off builds/ rural houses = massive inflation in house prices = more pressure on rental)

I'd think it is more a matter of Hanlon's razor "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

I wish I could but I don't think I can credit our political 'leaders' with the collective intelligence to purposefully manipulate the property market so systematically. I think it is more likely they are just clueless.

Gumbo

riclad wrote: »

So every flat has to have one bathroom.
i Lived in a bedsit ,it was fine , there was a bathroom on each floor .
Putting in a bathroom is expensive in old buildings ,
it caused rents to go up.
It reduced the no of units on the market, it especially effected single
people on rent allowance .

Can require planning permission, fire safety cert, disability access cert and then full supervision by an assigned Certifier under the building control act.

You can see now why the owners are selling them off.
Mostly they don't even require planning to be converted back to one single family unit depending on their status.

Gumbo

Barely Hedged wrote: »

It's all to do with regulations and improving accommodation standards and safety.

A lot of the pre 63 buildings are listed and to bring them up to fire regulation compliance, never mind all the other criteria, is simply impossible. As an example, in some listed Georgian buildings you can't touch/change the plasterwork on the ceilings so you can't fire proof it.

Imagine a fire ravaged a 4 storey over basement Georgian building in Mountjoy square killing 10-20 people. Wouldn't look great for the regulation setters if there were none in place

In fairness there are many ways to achieve fire compliance in a protected structure from above. In most of these units they are lath and plaster ceilings, so you remove the floor boards from above and lay a product called lamitherm, envirgraffe 53 or similar product between the existing joists.

I am on a few of these at present and I am happy with this arrangement, as is conservation in DCC and Fire Prevention.

Barely Hedged

kceire wrote: »

In fairness there are many ways to achieve fire compliance in a protected structure from above. In most of these units they are lath and plaster ceilings, so you remove the floor boards from above and lay a product called lamitherm, envirgraffe 53 or similar product between the existing joists.

I am on a few of these at present and I am happy with this arrangement, as is conservation in DCC and Fire Prevention.

From above, but what about side partitioning also? That could lead to increasing studios to one beds, one beds to two beds and a resulting decrease in yields making the investment less attractive.

I wasn't aware of the fix from above for below

Gumbo

Barely Hedged wrote: »

From above, but what about side partitioning also? That could lead to increasing studios to one beds, one beds to two beds and a resulting decrease in yields making the investment less attractive.

I wasn't aware of the fix from above for below

Typically speaking, there are converted to one per floor, so there's no vertical compartments other than the stair core. And in most of these older buildings, the staircores are brick built, as per most of the inner walls.

Ther are many ways to comply depending on each particular building.

I won't get into the yields, rents etc but housing standards are a good thing and I agree with them so to me, in my profession, I don't care if the landlord looks 10 bedsits, to get 6 apartments. He will be still making profit IMO.

newacc2015

There was this massive myth that all Pre 63s were on par with the tenements, all of them just having the odd oil filled heater in each room and twenty flats sharing a toilet. I have been to some Pre 63s and they were really nice. A landlord with a massive house in Dublin 4, knew having a high standard flat was going to get a decent rent. I have been to some Pre-63s on the NCR and the flats were pretty horrific. But were they worse than the standard of other housing in the area? Not really, as bad areas of Dublin tend to have bad quality housing ie not maintained very well, corners cut on quality. There are large developments in Dublin 1 with no a single owner occupier in them. They are purpose built apartments and were built to a decent standard. But most investors dont want to spend money on vanity projects in an area where you wont get the expenditure back ie Parnell St

I dont think DCC really envisioned that a majority of Pre 63s would be bordered up and sold. I imagine they assumed some of them would be turned into apartments. But most of have been turned into offices, single family homes or are lying idol. DCC literally took hundreds (probably thousands) of housing units that would have typically have been rented by lower income renters out of the housing supply without taking into consideration to where these people would live

No rational Landlord is going to sink €100/120k in a medium sized Georgian House to bring it up to code(that is what a few landlords told me they were quoted for their 3 storey houses). Especially when the Government is consistently making being a landlord harder and less profitable each year ie the new rent controls and reductions in mortgage interest relief. There is too much in uncertainty in the industry for most people. Property should be a safe haven, but all the ad hoc changes in the industry are too risky for most Landlords. Converting pre-63s to regular apartments will be profitable for Landlords. But is all the work and the uncertainty in the industry acceptable for most landlords? IMO no, hence the reason why most of the NCR has been for sale in the last 5 years.

I think banning of the Pre-63s will save areas from the slow decline they were heading into. The NCR between Hanlons Corner and Phisboro is like a new street. A lot of the houses are now gutted and really nice looking. The area used to be referred to as murder mile in the late 90s, but it now looks like any respectable street in Glasnevin or Drumcondra. The likes of Drumcondra Road has been given a new lease of life

4ensic15

the pre 63s are being turned into family homes, which of course gentrifies the areas around them. The problem I see is that it is happening at a time of acute housing shortage. There are houses with empty flats because of an external bathroom, not even shared. No fire issues. At the same time people are sleeping on floors in shelters. Surely it would be better for someone to be allowed live in the bedsit than have to go to a shelter every night and sleep on the floor?

L1011

Bathrooms outside the flat are allowed if dedicated to that flat still.

4ensic15

L1011 wrote: »

Bathrooms outside the flat are allowed if dedicated to that flat still.

No they are not. I know a builder who was working on a house and he was told if he couldn't get a bathroom into the bedsit then it couldn't be let. The bathroom has to be in the habitable area of the dwelling, therefore a house with only an outdoor bathroom can't be let.

Kings Inns or bust

L1011 wrote: »

Bathrooms outside the flat are allowed if dedicated to that flat still.

4ensic15 wrote: »

No they are not. I know a builder who was working on a house and he was told if he couldn't get a bathroom into the bedsit then it couldn't be let. The bathroom has to be in the habitable area of the dwelling, therefore a house with only an outdoor bathroom can't be let.

It's a bit confusing what you guys mean here. Do you mean outside as in out the front door through a common area and into a bathroom that only I have access too or outdoor as in the bathroom my grandad would have used?

4ensic15

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

It's a bit confusing what you guys mean here. Do you mean outside as in out the front door through a common area and into a bathroom that only I have access too or outdoor as in the bathroom my grandad would have used?

It has been interpreted that you can't go into a common hallway to get to the bathroom. Neither can you go out a back door to get to a bathroom even if the yard is not a common area.

If they just removed the kitchen equipment from the rooms and made a common kitchen (possibly by sacrificing one of the bedrooms) is there anything stopping them being let as houseshares?

Gumbo

Kenny Juicy Termination wrote: »

If they just removed the kitchen equipment from the rooms and made a common kitchen (possibly by sacrificing one of the bedrooms) is there anything stopping them being let as houseshares?

There's provision in the regs for this but similar fire safety standards have to be met. Also alterations to a building containing a flat so planning still required and fire/disability Certs.

Gumbo

newacc2015 wrote: »

There was this massive myth that all Pre 63s were on par with the tenements, all of them just having the odd oil filled heater in each room and twenty flats sharing a toilet. I have been to some Pre 63s and they were really nice. A landlord with a massive house in Dublin 4, knew having a high standard flat was going to get a decent rent. I have been to some Pre-63s on the NCR and the flats were pretty horrific. But were they worse than the standard of other housing in the area? Not really, as bad areas of Dublin tend to have bad quality housing ie not maintained very well, corners cut on quality. There are large developments in Dublin 1 with no a single owner occupier in them. They are purpose built apartments and were built to a decent standard. But most investors dont want to spend money on vanity projects in an area where you wont get the expenditure back ie Parnell St

I dont think DCC really envisioned that a majority of Pre 63s would be bordered up and sold. I imagine they assumed some of them would be turned into apartments. But most of have been turned into offices, single family homes or are lying idol. DCC literally took hundreds (probably thousands) of housing units that would have typically have been rented by lower income renters out of the housing supply without taking into consideration to where these people would live

No rational Landlord is going to sink €100/120k in a medium sized Georgian House to bring it up to code(that is what a few landlords told me they were quoted for their 3 storey houses). Especially when the Government is consistently making being a landlord harder and less profitable each year ie the new rent controls and reductions in mortgage interest relief. There is too much in uncertainty in the industry for most people. Property should be a safe haven, but all the ad hoc changes in the industry are too risky for most Landlords. Converting pre-63s to regular apartments will be profitable for Landlords. But is all the work and the uncertainty in the industry acceptable for most landlords? IMO no, hence the reason why most of the NCR has been for sale in the last 5 years.

I think banning of the Pre-63s will save areas from the slow decline they were heading into. The NCR between Hanlons Corner and Phisboro is like a new street. A lot of the houses are now gutted and really nice looking. The area used to be referred to as murder mile in the late 90s, but it now looks like any respectable street in Glasnevin or Drumcondra. The likes of Drumcondra Road has been given a new lease of life

Was it the LA that introduced these standards or the Department of Environment? If the DoE then all DCC do is enforce the standards.

kceire

kceire wrote: »

There's provision in the regs for this but similar fire safety standards have to be met. Also alterations to a building containing a flat so planning still required and fire/disability Certs.

Aside from the fire safety which I was just going to assume was in place I don't see what actual alterations would be required. Remove kitchen appliance and sink from bedrooms and make another room a kitchen. Would be no different really to converting to a family home which wouldn't need planning you said. A houseshare house and a family home are the same thing.

L1011

4ensic15 wrote: »

No they are not. I know a builder who was working on a house and he was told if he couldn't get a bathroom into the bedsit then it couldn't be let. The bathroom has to be in the habitable area of the dwelling, therefore a house with only an outdoor bathroom can't be let.

Not an interpretation of the regulations I've seen anyone else have.

4ensic15

L1011 wrote: »

Not an interpretation of the regulations I've seen anyone else have.

See it now.

http://www.herald.ie/news/regulations-are-forcing-me-out-of-my-home-reveals-pensioner-31566015.html

This is the Regulation. Exclusive use of the house is not sufficient, it must be within the habitable areas.

Housing (Standards for Rented Houses) Regulations 2008
Sanitary Facilities

6. (1) There shall be provided within the habitable area of the house, for the exclusive use of the house:

(a) A watercloset, with dedicated wash hand basin adjacent thereto with a continuous supply of cold water and a facility for the piped supply of hot water, and

(b) A fixed bath or shower with continuous supply of cold water and a facility for the piped supply of hot water.

(2) The requirements of sub-article (1) shall:

(i) be maintained in good working order,

(ii) have safe and effective means of drainage,

(iii) be properly insulated and secured,

(iv) have minimum capacity requirements for hot and cold water storage facilities, and

(v) be provided in a room separated from other rooms by a wall and a door and containing separate ventilation.

Gumbo

Kenny Juicy Termination wrote: »

Aside from the fire safety which I was just going to assume was in place I don't see what actual alterations would be required. Remove kitchen appliance and sink from bedrooms and make another room a kitchen. Would be no different really to converting to a family home which wouldn't need planning you said. A houseshare house and a family home are the same thing.

Buildings containing flats are a bit more strict.
These types of works would require at the very least a fire safety certificate and then a disability access certificate is mandatory.

Converting to the family home is only exempt if it once stood as a single dwelling, otherwise planning may be required. And if it's a protected structure then no matter how small the alterations, planning is required.

99% of current bedsits do not have fire safety certificates in place at present.

L1011

4ensic15 wrote: »

See it now.

http://www.herald.ie/news/regulations-are-forcing-me-out-of-my-home-reveals-pensioner-31566015.html

This is the Regulation. Exclusive use of the house is not sufficient, it must be within the habitable areas.

Housing (Standards for Rented Houses) Regulations 2008
Sanitary Facilities

6. (1) There shall be provided within the habitable area of the house, for the exclusive use of the house:

(a) A watercloset, with dedicated wash hand basin adjacent thereto with a continuous supply of cold water and a facility for the piped supply of hot water, and

(b) A fixed bath or shower with continuous supply of cold water and a facility for the piped supply of hot water.

(2) The requirements of sub-article (1) shall:

(i) be maintained in good working order,

(ii) have safe and effective means of drainage,

(iii) be properly insulated and secured,

(iv) have minimum capacity requirements for hot and cold water storage facilities, and

(v) be provided in a room separated from other rooms by a wall and a door and containing separate ventilation.

I wouldn't be so sure that a separate bathroom falls foul of that - I read that as excluding outdoor facilities, not dedicated bathrooms detached from the main unit.

A Hegguld story where a landlady is kicking someone out != actually failing an inspection. They could have had other units with shared bathrooms that could no longer be rented making the entire building unviable; or it could even be a case that its convention that that one was his rather than it being so.

4ensic15

L1011 wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure that a separate bathroom falls foul of that - I read that as excluding outdoor facilities, not dedicated bathrooms detached from the main unit.

A Hegguld story where a landlady is kicking someone out != actually failing an inspection. They could have had other units with shared bathrooms that could no longer be rented making the entire building unviable; or it could even be a case that its convention that that one was his rather than it being so.

You are involved in speculation about the herald story. The pensioner has not said that the entire building is being closed down. An external bathroom is not within the habitable space of the dwelling. Have you any support for your proposition?

L1011

4ensic15 wrote: »

You are involved in speculation about the herald story.

Because its a sensationalist rag. Its more of a stretch to assume its entirely true than not!

4ensic15 wrote: »

An external bathroom is not within the habitable space of the dwelling. Have you any support for your proposition?

"habitable area" is not given a specific interpretation in the SI. My interpretation is that it means not outdoors.

riclad

Old Type bedsits don.t exist.
each tenant must have a bathroom.
Landlords have a choice convert the building or sell it .
I Know people who lived in bedsits for 10 years ,and were very happy.
This rule does not apply to the rent a room scheme .
i think the rules for pre 63,s are different ,re fire safety .

4ensic15

L1011 wrote: »

Because its a sensationalist rag. Its more of a stretch to assume its entirely true than not!

If it wasn't true DCC would have quickly denied it. I have come across other examples. That is the interpretation the Environmental Officers give it.


"habitable area" is not given a specific interpretation in the SI. My interpretation is that it means not outdoors.[/QUOTE]

Your interpretation? Have you a single example of a tenant being allowed to remain in a dwelling with an external bathroom? A letting cannot comprise of two areas separated by a an area through which others have access unless one part is to an outhouse. An external bathroom down a hallway is not in the same dwelling as the bedsitter since there is a common area in between.