€890 pcm for a garden flat in Drimnagh!

Elliott S

Haven Fit Gopher wrote: »

You could ask the same questions about any amount of houses that are currently being lived in up and down the country.

And maybe those questions should be asked.

Idbatterim

the fact that people are building in their back gardens and that people must deem them a better option than the alternatives, tells you all you need to know about government and local authority failure!

at least they are consistent though, dont live in sheds, but dont allow any reasonable densities either... which is forcing people to go to these extremes :mad::rolleyes:

intheclouds

Idbatterim wrote: »

the fact that people are building in their back gardens and that people must deem them a better option than the alternatives, tells you all you need to know about government and local authority failure!

at least they are consistent though, dont live in sheds, but dont allow any reasonable densities either... which is forcing people to go to these extremes :mad::rolleyes:

Absolutely. If we didnt have a housing crisis these types of dwellings wouldnt be advertised.

Baby01032012

What's going to happen to these dwellings when the housing crisis is sorted out...wishful thinking...maybe the pet dog gets his home back.

intheclouds

Baby01032012 wrote: »

What's going to happen to these dwellings when the housing crisis is sorted out...wishful thinking...maybe the pet dog gets his home back.

The one being discussed in this thread was also the subject of a thread on reddit where some resourceful person had come across the property advertisement of when that property was last sold (quite recently) and the current shed/flat was a conversion of an existing shed in the back garden. I did notice the existing shed had a cat flap in the door suggesting it was the cats home

Spanish Eyes

We live in a terrace. Lane out back (fully driveable) with gate access and garage access.

No one around here (despite many applications) has got permission to build habitable accommodation. The gardens are 80 ft long BEFORE the garage. Would be great for granny and grandad. Or indeed to help the housing crisis. But no. Not a chance.

Is this Government serious about sorting things out or what?

Could someone tell me the reasons it is not allowed. Surely provided they are built/converted to all rules and regs with proper planning, should be fine.

Anyway.... I have no intention of doing it for myself, but just wondered.

Harvey Normal

Baby01032012 wrote: »

What's going to happen to these dwellings when the housing crisis is sorted out...wishful thinking...maybe the pet dog gets his home back.

This crisis will last a decade. The government plans to push prices up to generate more supply will change nothing.

Harvey Normal

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

We live in a terrace. Lane out back (fully driveable) with gate access and garage access.

No one around here (despite many applications) has got permission to build habitable accommodation. The gardens are 80 ft long BEFORE the garage. Would be great for granny and grandad. Or indeed to help the housing crisis. But no. Not a chance.

Is this Government serious about sorting things out or what?

Could someone tell me the reasons it is not allowed. Surely provided they are built/converted to all rules and regs with proper planning, should be fine.

Anyway.... I have no intention of doing it for myself, but just wondered.

It should be allowed with proper inspections. But as we've seen there aren't proper inspections.

h57xiucj2z946q

I think sometimes landlords chance their arm at a crazy figure, and ultimately when no one bites, they have no choice but to reduce:



http://www.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/rathmines/leinster-square-rathmines-dublin-1662105/

TOEJOE

I would assume its to do with housing density.A large garden would easily accommodate a house or flat. Planning is definitely not automatic in Dublin you have to go through many hoops to get it.

pilly

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

We live in a terrace. Lane out back (fully driveable) with gate access and garage access.

No one around here (despite many applications) has got permission to build habitable accommodation. The gardens are 80 ft long BEFORE the garage. Would be great for granny and grandad. Or indeed to help the housing crisis. But no. Not a chance.

Is this Government serious about sorting things out or what?

Could someone tell me the reasons it is not allowed. Surely provided they are built/converted to all rules and regs with proper planning, should be fine.

Anyway.... I have no intention of doing it for myself, but just wondered.

Apparently it's to do with how much garden people have left? But surely it's up to an individual to decide if they want a garden or not?

Graham

Idbatterim wrote: »

at least they are consistent though, dont live in sheds, but dont allow any reasonable densities either.

Planning laws need to change to allow controlled higher density development in our cities.

Allowing people to live in sheds in back gardens is not the way to achieve this.

Spanish Eyes

pilly wrote: »

Apparently it's to do with how much garden people have left? But surely it's up to an individual to decide if they want a garden or not?

I know there are restrictions about that, but in the case of our road, the gardens are very long, about 80 feet, BEFORE reaching the garage and back gate! So, even with a kitchen extension off the main house for example, there would be more than enough space for a family garden and a strip fenced off at the "granny apartment" for their own use.

Planning Permission has NEVER been granted for a habitable space by either knocking and rebuilding, or converting the garages. Many have tried. Baffles me.

No problem getting planning for a playroom, office, or workshop type of conversion, but it cannot be lived in.

What about all these la di da "mews developments" in the D4/6 areas. No problems there it seems in building at the bottom of your garden. Ha ha.

Spanish Eyes

Graham wrote: »

Planning laws need to change to allow controlled higher density development in our cities.

Allowing people to live in sheds in back gardens is not the way to achieve this.

But they are not legally allowed to live in so called "sheds". That is the problem right there. Many are flouting the absurd planning laws that will NOT allow habitable space at the bottom of a garden.

So then people flout the law and chance their arm.

As I said in another post, there are plenty of mews developments in other areas (maybe that is being clamped down aswell now), but none allowed here. We are 4.5km from the city centre. But no.

Graham

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Planning Permission has NEVER been granted for a habitable space by either knocking and rebuilding, or converting the garages. Many have tried. Baffles me.

Isn't it public record when a planning application gets declined?

Spanish Eyes

Graham wrote: »

Isn't it public record when a planning application gets declined?

Yes, the reason given is that the application is declined because it is a habitable space.

In fact I read somewhere that permission was granted for a workspace somewhere in Dublin at the bottom of the garden, but as soon as applicant installed a shower and toilet s/he had to remove it or knock it, can't remember which, but it was deemed to be habitable as a result.

Seems a bit OTT to me.

Graham

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Many are flouting the absurd planning laws that will NOT allow habitable space at the bottom of a garden.

Personally I think it's a fairly good thing that uncontrolled garden development isn't permitted.

Gumbo

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

We live in a terrace. Lane out back (fully driveable) with gate access and garage access.

No one around here (despite many applications) has got permission to build habitable accommodation. The gardens are 80 ft long BEFORE the garage. Would be great for granny and grandad. Or indeed to help the housing crisis. But no. Not a chance.

Is this Government serious about sorting things out or what?

Could someone tell me the reasons it is not allowed. Surely provided they are built/converted to all rules and regs with proper planning, should be fine.

Anyway.... I have no intention of doing it for myself, but just wondered.

Nobody has met the minimum requirement with regards the planning regulations. That's why they have been refused. Nothing to do with bad system or anything, if you cannot meet the requirements with regards to open space, access, off street parking then you won't get permission and the rules are universal through the city.

Harvey Normal wrote: »

It should be allowed with proper inspections. But as we've seen there aren't proper inspections.

Deem proper inspections? Inspections by who?

pilly wrote: »

Apparently it's to do with how much garden people have left? But surely it's up to an individual to decide if they want a garden or not?

You have to comply with the city development plan. The figures required are there in black and white.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I know there are restrictions about that, but in the case of our road, the gardens are very long, about 80 feet, BEFORE reaching the garage and back gate! So, even with a kitchen extension off the main house for example, there would be more than enough space for a family garden and a strip fenced off at the "granny apartment" for their own use.

Planning Permission has NEVER been granted for a habitable space by either knocking and rebuilding, or converting the garages. Many have tried. Baffles me.

No problem getting planning for a playroom, office, or workshop type of conversion, but it cannot be lived in.

What about all these la di da "mews developments" in the D4/6 areas. No problems there it seems in building at the bottom of your garden. Ha ha.

Those mews developments would have complied with the requirements of mews requirements or infill housing requirements, again the figures are set out in black and white in the city development plan.

Graham wrote: »

Personally I think it's a fairly good thing that uncontrolled garden development isn't permitted.

Same here. Now is not a time to destroy our planning guides and allow a free for all!

Spanish Eyes

Graham wrote: »

Personally I think it's a fairly good thing that uncontrolled garden development isn't permitted.

Seems to be no problem in certain areas of Dublin, i.e. mews at the bottom of a garden. They have laneways and separate access, as do the houses here, but it is not allowed at all around here.

Therefore it is not consistent planning law.

Spanish Eyes

kceire wrote: »

Nobody has met the minimum requirement with regards the planning regulations. That's why they have been refused. Nothing to do with bad system or anything, if you cannot meet the requirements with regards to open space, access, off street parking then you won't get permission and the rules are universal through the city.



Deem proper inspections? Inspections by who?



You have to comply with the city development plan. The figures required are there in black and white.



Those mews developments would have complied with the requirements of mews requirements or infill housing requirements, again the figures are set out in black and white in the city development plan.



Same here. Now is not a time to destroy our planning guides and allow a free for all!

Thanks for the information. Appreciate you taking the time.

Graham

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Therefore it is not consistent planning law.

Different areas have different characteristics, requirements and objectives. It's only reasonable that these are taken into account in planning and planning decisions.

Gumbo

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Seems to be no problem in certain areas of Dublin, i.e. mews at the bottom of a garden. They have laneways and separate access, as do the houses here, but it is not allowed at all around here.

Therefore it is not consistent planning law.

Yes it is. The mews in ballsbridge has to meet the same criteria as the mews in raheny. It's all set out in the Dublin City development plan.

If you post up an address of an example or even a plan reference number , the exact reasons why they were refused are online for public access.

shugy

Better someone sleeping in that than on the street IMO

Gumbo

<mod snip >

I have to be honest, I disagree. The current batch of homes been constructed are way ahead of what was built 5 years and even 10 years ago.

Take my own home for example, timber frame built in 2006. Very efficient, heating hasn't been on since Feb/Mar of this year. And the newer stuff is more air tight, more insulation and then renewables which all will keep energy costs down big time.

And there's no fooling the system, mandatory air tightness tests on new builds and mandatory sound tests on. Ew builds ensures that the details are correct during the building stage.

Giacomo McGubbin

<mod snip >

The first step to reform and improvement of the Irish construction industry is to acknowledge the problems, but as this thread proves, there's little hope of that. It's not in the cowboy's interests. As there is still almost zero enforcement of any of the regulations, and "self certification" still reigns supreme, legit operators in the Irish construction industry have little hope in this environment, and would be better to diversify into something else in the meantime.

Gumbo

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

The first step to reform and improvement of the Irish construction industry is to acknowledge the problems, but as this thread proves, there's little hope of that. It's not in the cowboy's interests. Legit operators in the Irish construction industry have little hope in this environment, and would be better to diversify into something else in the meantime.

It's because of the cowboys this thread was started. Cowboys and greed trying to rent out a domestic shed.

athtrasna

Mod note

Folks you guys know that this is a serious forum. So many inappropriate posts on this thread deleted

OfflerCrocGod

kceire wrote: »

I have to be honest, I disagree. The current batch of homes been constructed are way ahead of what was built 5 years and even 10 years ago.

Take my own home for example, timber frame built in 2006. Very efficient, heating hasn't been on since Feb/Mar of this year. And the newer stuff is more air tight, more insulation and then renewables which all will keep energy costs down big time.

I was looking at the new houses in Hansfield Wood and they still have the air vent holes to outside in almost every room in the house. You can see the outside clearly through the white vents...that doesn't seem very air tight to me.

GGTrek

Graham wrote: »

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Therefore it is not consistent planning law.

Different areas have different characteristics, requirements and objectives. It's only reasonable that these are taken into account in planning and planning decisions.

Let me tell you from personal experience: Dublin city planning officers have a lot of discretionary leeway when approving planning requests and they abuse it big time! For example I had to write to a pen pusher at DCC planning office that if he was refusing to allow the repair of the chimney of my listed property because he wanted to impose a planning permission even though I had a survey from a chartered surveyor mandating that the chimney needed urgent repairs (with photos!), I would have sued him personally togheter with DCC in case the chimney fell on the roof based on health and safety reasons. He promptly issued a letter permitting repairs done by a building company that was specialized in listed houses restorations (very expensive as well) without planning permission.

With respect to the mews planning permissions, refusals or acceptance are very often arbitrary in the name of (I quote it here literally from planning applications so that a post in this thread gets contrary evidence about objectivity of DCC planning office): "in the interest of proper planning and sustainable development of the area.". When a civil servant is left so much leeway by the law, you have no judicial recourse possible to arbitrary decisions (unlike the first case where the pen pusher knew his nice cushy job was on the line).
I mean again read this forum, one of the main reasons of the housing crisis in Ireland are the "conservative interpretations" of planning law given by many Irish planning offices in particular DCC planning office where the housing crisis is much worse than the rest of Ireland.
I stop my rant here, but I cannot accept clearly incorrect information on planning applications spread by a post in this thread: I like real evidence based on facts.

Gumbo

OfflerCrocGod wrote: »

I was looking at the new houses in Hansfield Wood and they still have the air vent holes to outside in almost every room in the house. You can see the outside clearly through the white vents...that doesn't seem very air tight to me.

Our building regulations allow for minimum compliance and then it's up to the home owner to how far they want to go. Background ventilation in rooms is still a requirement under technical guidance document part F and it's up to you how you achieve the required air changes be that with 100mm holes in the walls (which will obviously reduce your air tightness result) or have no holes but pay for an expensive mechanical heat recovery system that brings in and out the new air.

There's a choice to be made and gents in the walls are still perfectly acceptable.

GGTrek wrote: »

Let me tell you from personal experience: Dublin city planning officers have a lot of discretionary leeway when approving planning requests and they abuse it big time! For example I had to write to a pen pusher at DCC planning office that if he was refusing to allow the repair of the chimney of my listed property because he wanted to impose a planning permission even though I had a survey from a chartered surveyor mandating that the chimney needed urgent repairs (with photos!), I would have sued him personally togheter with DCC in case the chimney fell on the roof based on health and safety reasons. He promptly issued a letter permitting repairs done by a building company that was specialized in listed houses restorations (very expensive as well) without planning permission.

With respect to the mews planning permissions, refusals or acceptance are very often arbitrary in the name of (I quote it here literally from planning applications so that a post in this thread gets contrary evidence about objectivity of DCC planning office): "in the interest of proper planning and sustainable development of the area.". When a civil servant is left so much leeway by the law, you have no judicial recourse possible to arbitrary decisions (unlike the first case where the pen pusher knew his nice cushy job was on the line).
I mean again read this forum, one of the main reasons of the housing crisis in Ireland are the "conservative interpretations" of planning law given by many Irish planning offices in particular DCC planning office where the housing crisis is much worse than the rest of Ireland.
I stop my rant here, but I cannot accept clearly incorrect information on planning applications spread by a post in this thread: I like real evidence based on facts.

Just as you say, your post doesn't make perfect sense.
No DCC planning staff are civil servants for starters, they are public servants, there's actually a difference.

Planning decisions are not just made by one planner, they pass through a process from assistant, to area planner, to the senior planner for the area and eventually on to the executive manage to sign the final decision. No one person can push a planning application through the system. I've had applications get recommended a grant by the area planners only to be over ruled by the senior and also vice versa.

Also, with regards to protected structures, they require planning for almost all works. I find it very hard to believe that you threatened a staff member with legal action as they would not be liable for any damage that is caused by the chimney in question. Your chartered surveyor if he was one, should have quoted sections of the planning and development regs in order to carry out the repairs, and you may not have had to deal with DCC at all, so it sounds like you got bad advice from your surveyor. Also, DCC conservation will tell you exactly what you can and can't do without planning on protected structures if you ask them. I've had them on sites, where they have guided us through the whole construction program, found them very obliging as they are actually conservation led staff and actually want to preserve the buildings.

You are right about one thing though, you are on a rant. If you calm down and look at the facts, you might be surprised. The pen pushed you seemly threatened would not be involved in the decision making process of any buildings contained in the RPS.