Illegal Demolition in Dublin 8!

expectationlost

a lot of the corner houses have been extended around there, but were any of them demolished and rebuilt?

Gavin "shels"

expectationlost wrote: »

a lot of the corner houses have been extended around there, but were any of them demolished and rebuilt?

None that I'm aware of around the Liberties - they'd be a lot up around Crumlin/Drimnagh also and none have been demolished.

Muahahaha

Just wondering would An Taisce get involved in something like this?

Esel

Muahahaha wrote: »

Just wondering would An Taisce get involved in something like this?

Probably not - no cultural, historical or architectural aspects.

Gavin "shels"

As per Esel probably not, was talk at the initial meeting about potentially getting OPW involved but again doesn't seem it would be their avenue.

Snipp

The new build will still have to comply with planning. There should be no fear among residents that anything else will happen.

Gavin "shels"

Well currently as of 8am this morning it's about 5/6 foot high of generic blue cinder blocks.... not it's original red brick.

Markcheese

Gavin "shels" wrote: »

Well currently as of 8am this morning it's about 5/6 foot high of generic blue cinder blocks.... not it's original red brick.

That's one thing the council should insist on is appropriate old bricks to be the outer leaf of the wall, (appropriate to be decided upon by the citys architectural team)

Chris_5339762

I think if someone is brazen enough to demolish a house in this way and give two fingers to their neighbours and the various planning departments I would be very surprised if they put up a new house that is in any way sympathetic to the area or in this case, done with original red bricks.

Gavin "shels"

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

I think if someone is brazen enough to demolish a house in this way and give two fingers to their neighbours and the various planning departments I would be very surprised if they put up a new house that is in any way sympathetic to the area or in this case, done with original red bricks.

Brazen enough is one thing.... but being allowed get away with it by Planning Enforcement is absolutely absurd. Why there hasn't been someone out as of yet (to the best of my knowledge) is madness - 3 builders "trying" to gain access to the site at 7.45am this morning and all that stood in their way was a padlock which they obviously weren't informed of...

spurious

God help them if they were neighbours of mine and wanted planning permission for ANYTHING after that.

Marcusm

Gavin shels wrote: »

Well currently as of 8am this morning it's about 5/6 foot high of generic blue cinder blocks.... not it's original red brick.

Where was the brick in the original house other than a few cosmetic courses? Those houses are rendered or pebble-dashed. I assumed that they were mass concrete construction.

StupidLikeAFox

spurious wrote: »

God help them if they were neighbours of mine and wanted planning permission for ANYTHING after that.

That's the thing though. You can object to anything you like but it has to be reasonable too and at the end of the day something has to be built there

Ridiculous that a builder can go down this road and after the initial fuss has died down can go on profit off it

Gavin "shels"

Marcusm wrote: »

Where was the brick in the original house other than a few cosmetic courses? Those houses are rendered or pebble-dashed. I assumed that they were mass concrete construction.

Majority of the houses around here are mainly redbrick, some are peddle dashed and are painted. 18 O'Donovan Rd was peddle dashed over the redbrick with some of the brick visible iirc.

Gaspode

You're correct & you can see it on google maps anyway.

Marcusm

Gavin shels wrote: »

Majority of the houses around here are mainly redbrick, some are peddle dashed and are painted. 18 O'Donovan Rd was peddle dashed over the redbrick with some of the brick visible iirc.

Those bricks are not structural, it is decorative. you can see from the way that the render/pebble dash is rebated back from the brick. They are almost certainly mass concrete construction which means that block work is probably an improvement. Irrespective, whatever cowboy builder demolished the house should have taken on a different job. Nonsensical approach given the impact on the adjacent building.

dudara

Its a very community-driven area, which was a major attraction for us when buying. I wonder if the current owner plans to live there afterwards, or if he plans to sell it on. Either way, there won’t be a very warm welcome for whoever lives there.

Also, what steps are going to be take to repair the damage to the adjoining house? Any residual damage will impact the new house also

Gavin "shels"

dudara wrote: »

Its a very community-driven area, which was a major attraction for us when buying. I wonder if the current owner plans to live there afterwards, or if he plans to sell it on. Either way, there won’t be a very warm welcome for whoever lives there.

Also, what steps are going to be take to repair the damage to the adjoining house? Any residual damage will impact the new house also

Spot on - very community based around here and always have been. It was seen when people turned out for the solidarity protest with Una from 19 O'Donovan Rd, people of all ages. And also the initial community meeting with Una which led to the protest.

If Brian does move into the house he definitely won't have a warm welcome, he's obviously scarred too - 2 CCTVs on a what was empty site and padlocks on his fencing.....

Last word was she is having issues still having Brian Morrows engineer to talk to her engineer to get a resolution in place for the damage and how to "connect" the two properties together.

Marcusm

Gavin shels wrote: »

Spot on - very community based around here and always have been. It was seen when people turned out for the solidarity protest with Una from 19 O'Donovan Rd, people of all ages. And also the initial community meeting with Una which led to the protest.

If Brian does move into the house he definitely won't have a warm welcome, he's obviously scarred too - 2 CCTVs on a what was empty site and padlocks on his fencing.....

Last word was she is having issues still having Brian Morrows engineer to talk to her engineer to get a resolution in place for the damage and how to "connect" the two properties together.

I didn’t realise that the owner of the demolished house is a surveyor (MRICS) who proudly proclaims his diploma in construction law. You couldn’t make it up.

gctest50

Gavin "shels" wrote: »

.........

- 2 CCTVs on a what was empty site and padlocks on his fencing.....
.

You'd put that on any site these days, it just shows he is being responsible

No-one has any business wandering around it

Gavin "shels"

Marcusm wrote: »

I didn’t realise that the owner of the demolished house is a surveyor (MRICS) who proudly proclaims his diploma in construction law. You couldn’t make it up.

Couldn't make it up at all...

No builders seem to stay on site more than a few days and then new ones... seems they may just be getting picked up as surplus on other sites...

gctest50 wrote: »

You'd put that on any site these days, it just shows he is being responsible

No-one has any business wandering around it

Could do with displaying a CCTV signage.... Is that the law when you're CCTV is pointing onto public roads?

Muahahaha

Marcusm wrote: »

I didn’t realise that the owner of the demolished house is a surveyor (MRICS) who proudly proclaims his diploma in construction law. You couldn’t make it up.

Well isnt that interesting, a member of a professional body of surveyors riding rough shot over his neighbours, planning laws and the very standards that he is supposed to uphold:-
https://www.rics.org/eu/upholding-professional-standards/standards-of-conduct/ethics/

Act in a manner, both in your professional life and private life, to promote you, your firm or the organisation you work for in a professional and positive way. This standard includes, but is not limited to, the following behaviours or actions:

Promoting what you and the profession stand for – the highest standards globally.
Understanding that being a professional is more than just about how you behave at work; it's also about how you behave in your private life.
Understanding how your actions affect others and the environment and, if appropriate, questioning or amending that behaviour.
Fulfilling your obligations. Doing what you say you will.
Always trying to meet the spirit of your professional standards and not just the letter of the standards.
Some of the key questions that you could ask yourself include:

Do my actions promote the profession in the best light possible?
What is the best way for me to promote trust in myself, my firm and the profession?
Do I explain and promote the benefits, the checks and balances that exist with the professional services that I provide?

Plus more on ethics-

Be honest and straightforward in all that you do. This is one of our five professional and ethical standards. This standard includes, but is not limited to, the following behaviours or actions:

Being trustworthy in all that you do.
Being open and transparent in the way you work. Sharing appropriate and necessary information with your clients and/or others to conduct business and doing so in a way so they can understand that information.
Respecting confidential information of your clients and potential clients.
Don’t divulge information to others unless it is appropriate to do so.
Not taking advantage of a client, a colleague, a third party or anyone to whom you owe a duty of care.
Not allowing bias, conflict of interest or the undue influence of others to override your professional or business judgements and obligations.
Making clear to all interested parties where a conflict of interest, or even a potential conflict of interest, arises between you or your employer and your client.
Not offering or accepting gifts, hospitality or services, which might suggest an improper obligation.
Acting consistently in the public interest when it comes to making decisions or providing advice.
Some of the key questions that you could ask yourself include:

What would an independent person think of my actions?
Would I be happy to read about my actions in the press?
How would my actions look to RICS?
How would my actions look to my peers?
Do people trust me? If not, why not?
How often do I question what I do, not just in relation to meeting technical requirements but also in terms of acting professionally and ethically?
Is this in the interest of my client, or my interest, or the interest of someone else?
Would I like to be treated in this way if I were a client?
Do I promote professional and ethical standards in all that I do?
Do I say "show me where it says I can't" or do I say "is this ethical"?

If he did that to my house I would 110% be complaining to the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors about his conduct. I would imagine they would take a very dim view of a surveyor behaving in this manner.
https://www.rics.org/eu/footer/contact-us/complaints/

gctest50

Gavin "shels" wrote: »

Couldn't make it up at all...

No builders seem to stay on site more than a few days and then new ones......

You're trying make mountains out of molehills

Very flat molehills

Gavin "shels"

Thanks for that Muahahaha

Gavin "shels"

gctest50 wrote: »

You're trying make mountains out of molehills

Very flat molehills

Good contribution... Just stating facts, you don't think it's unusual that different builders float onto the site on a weekly basic instead of a consistent contractor?

PeterBee

Gavin "shels" wrote: »

Good contribution... Just stating facts, you don't think it's unusual that different builders float onto the site on a weekly basic instead of a consistent contractor?

Could it be that the builders move on because they don’t want to be thought of as bullies? Perhaps they are living up to a ‘common sense’ code of ethics? Perhaps they want their family, children and friends to be proud of them.

Gavin "shels"

PeterBee wrote: »

Could it be that the builders move on because they don’t want to be thought of as bullies? Perhaps they are living up to a ‘common sense’ code of ethics? Perhaps they want their family, children and friends to be proud of them.

Definitely - the last set of builders seem a poster in the local cafe of the planned protest and they asked the neighbour what it was about... Not sure they've been on site much since. His wife was local funnily enough.

gctest50

I still don't get the daft logic

It is now flat

The locals would like a house there again

To do this ya need builders

Would "the locals" not encourage the contractors then ?

Gavin "shels"

gctest50 wrote: »

I still don't get the daft logic

It is now flat

The locals would like a house there again

To do this ya need builders

Would "the locals" not encourage the contractors then ?

What's a flat? No idea what you're on about. Maybe read the thread, then have a think and then post?

gctest50

I think there is a bit more to this


Did No.18 offer to buy No.19 ?

Gavin "shels"

gctest50 wrote: »

I think there is a bit more to this


Did No.18 offer to buy No.19 ?

I very much doubt it.... what's an offer? "Hi Una, can I buy your house" or actual legal dialog?

gctest50

Gavin "shels" wrote: »

I very much doubt it.... what's an offer?

"Hi Una, can I buy your house" or actual legal dialog?

Either

Don't need the philosophy

Gavin "shels"

gctest50 wrote: »

Either

Don't need the philosophy

Hi gctest50, can I buy your house off you?

dudara

Recent article in the Irish times gives some of the history of the area.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/house-and-home-an-irishwoman-s-diary-on-the-tenters-in-dublin-1.3639948

Gavin "shels"

Just an update on this - house being build currently (obviously to not breach the deadline of the end of January). Definitely not the same design as the previous building, it's come out further to the road and an extension going in on the side.

Muahahaha

Presumably if it doesnt conform to what was there previous it won't get retention for planning?

dudara

I noticed that when I walked past a few days ago. The front wall extends past the front of the other house. I didn’t think that would be allowed?

Gavin "shels"

Muahahaha wrote: »

Presumably if it doesnt conform to what was there previous it won't get retention for planning?

Considering DCC seem to have done very little to date, I wouldn't be expecting much to be done. A very bad precedent to be set.

dudara wrote: »

I noticed that when I walked past a few days ago. The front wall extends past the front of the other house. I didn’t think that would be allowed?

It was in his original planning that was rejected iirc.

Muahahaha

Gavin shels wrote: »

Considering DCC seem to have done very little to date, I wouldn't be expecting much to be done. A very bad precedent to be set.

Well lets hope that they do take action. I'd say that it is important that local people raise their objections with them in writing too so the planners in DCC know they are under the mircoscope. If he isn't building something that complies with planning then he should be refused retention which would make the property very difficult to ever sell, no bank would lend on it and no solicitor would certify it as having good title.

Planning aside he is going to leave his neighbours house devalued when it has this brand new structure attached next to it.

Gavin "shels"

Muahahaha wrote: »

Well lets hope that they do take action. I'd say that it is important that local people raise their objections with them in writing too so the planners in DCC know they are under the mircoscope. If he isn't building something that complies with planning then he should be refused retention which would make the property very difficult to ever sell, no bank would lend on it and no solicitor would certify it as having good title. .

Pat Dunne & Rebecca Moynihan where bringing it directly to DCC Planning Enforcement a few weeks ago after the first residents meeting about it.

wally79

Any updates on this

Gavin "shels"

wally79 wrote: »

Any updates on this

The whole outside structure is all but done and the wooden frames inside. It's being built as he wants it seems.... Not sure of his court dates as of yet.

CPTM

Gavin "shels" wrote: »

The whole outside structure is all but done and the wooden frames inside. It's being built as he wants it seems.... Not sure of his court dates as of yet.

Does anyone have any pictures? This is such a bizarre case.

Gavin "shels"

CPTM wrote: »

Does anyone have any pictures? This is such a bizarre case.

I walk past it each day going to work but haven't taken any - won't be going home after work but will try take a few tomorrow.

A delivery of glass/windows was pulling up at 7.30am this morning.... when I mean a delivery, I mean a whole trailer full! Assuming it's for the near whole glass extension to the side...

Gavin "shels"

loveall

Looks like a lot of rental potential. Multiple occupancy. Why not? Seems they got away with everything else.

retalivity

This place is now for sale, 750k!!

Check out this property I found using Daft

https://www.daft.ie/for-sale/semi-detached-house-18-odonovan-road-dublin-8/5358316

miamee

Nice big picture windows on the extension so you can have a lovely view of...the school across the road 👀 I'd have the blinds closed all the time, bit of a waste when there is no 'view' as such.

Gavin "shels"

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121093220#Comment_121093220

My mam actually sent me it to the other day when it initially went up - I'd say it's Sale Agreed for over the 800k. Hopefully the neighbours have sounder neighbour(s) incoming.