Room to Improve - Grants 😱

Gusser09

This story has legs.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121625807#Comment_121625807

Launched July 2022

salmocab

Watching it now, the whole thing is just pushing the boundaries of believability.

we watch things like this understanding that they are making savings by not paying for the professionals in the show and that a lot of the vendors and suppliers are happy to give discounts to have their hi viz vests shown on tv but this is taking the piss, all the money talk is just nonsense none of it is real it’s just theatre. No credibility

Quantum Erasure

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1747396482511069283

https://m.independent.ie/opinion/dermot-bannon-built-room-to-improve-dream-home-without-planning-permission/a109580259.html

Dermot Bannon built ‘Room to Improve’ dream home without planning permission

Decision on retention of extension made three days before RTÉ show broadcast

Dr.Tom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627125#Comment_121627125

Bannon still living in The Celtic Tiger era in his own mind.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627125#Comment_121627125

An investigation found 11,000 people had constructed buildings since 2019 and asked forgiveness afterwards. The vast majority were granted retention approval.

That's the problem right there. If you let 11,000 people do it then why would anyone else bother.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627385#Comment_121627385

Because it's a valid route towards obtaining planning permission.

This is a complete non story

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627389#Comment_121627389

So build first get planning later is a 'valid route'?

Can you explain?

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627394#Comment_121627394

Quite simple, If it wasn't a valid route it wouldn't be made available by legislation.

It is available, therefore, it's valid

SharkMX

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121624120#Comment_121624120

Seen a roof where the whole roof had to be replaced before. You could see all the leaks on the ceilings inside the house. That house was immaculate. Even if the roof had to be replaced didnt make the house derelict. It just meant getting a new roof. A repair.

I see sheep

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627125#Comment_121627125

The Indo is rag journalism, ffs that couple have been through a hard time, I don't think they deserve this shite.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627399#Comment_121627399

Yes ok.

But would you not think it is the 'legislation' that allows this that is the 'problem'?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627458#Comment_121627458

As I said earlier, I am not convinced these grants were awarded and I think they may have just been claimed to have been applied for to fuflfill the remit for this series - to advertise/promote the grants.

If the grants were awarded to builds without planning then there is more trouble for the authorities there or should be.

SharkMX

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627479#Comment_121627479

Should be easy enough for them to come out and say this so. This story is getting more dodge by the day.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627474#Comment_121627474

No.

I have lots of experience in this.

During a build sometimes decisions are made, or occurrences happen, which fall into the "technically you need planning permission for that" hole.

So your options are, stop the build for a minimum of three months, pay the builder penalty clause money for this delay, risk the builder not being able to come back at the end of the three months, risk mortgage drawdown issues, possibly removal of mortgage offer etc.

Or you decide that the change, while technically requiring permission, is unlikely to be refused permission so you continue under the agreement that retention will be applied for on completion, before a certificate of compliance can be issued. An experienced architect or engineer will have a solid opinion on what would be granted retention, and what wouldn't.

As the indo article shows, hugh amounts of people choose this route and in the vast majority of cases permission is granted.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627535#Comment_121627535

As is typical here the legislation and functioning of the planning authority provides a loophole for the unscrupulous.

What really should be in place is a quicker process for people meeting this problem.

Recognise that what you outline happens and make it quicker to seek approval for minor changes.

That entire projects are being built and then retention sought is just bad planning waiting to happen.

I've had experience of it too and nothing galls me more than to see people take an a lá carte approach to planning while other stick to the letter of what is required.

I didn't realise that 11,000 people had gone this route.

ednwireland

I know someone who bought an empty house was refused grants and would have got 30k from an seai grant on a 90k spend with a one stop shop which in the end he couldn't afford because the roof had to be replaced. seems like there's double standards between what rti "appear " or claim to get and what everyone else gets.

people keep telling me they hear grants to fix stone houses, I've never seen any. did manage to avail of the vat scheme a few years ago that worked well.

FrancieBrady

I wonder will Pat Kenny ask Darragh O'Brien about it all in his show today on Newstalk

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627479#Comment_121627479

If the grants were awarded to builds without planning then there is more trouble for the authorities there or should be.

The grants were not awarded to builds without planning permission so you can relax.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627745#Comment_121627745

Did Bannon not say they got the grants / that this series was all about grants, so which is it?

Quote: "In episode two, Brian Carrigg and Kate Molony attempt to renovate a bungalow with a view of the Rock of Cashel that Kate has dreamed of owning all her life. As their budget is limited, the derelict and vacant homes grant and the SEAI grant have been integral to making this home build possible."

https://www.irishexaminer.com/property/homeandgardens/arid-41302732.html

Of course they also claimed the house was derelict - it was not?

The house was supposed to be vacant for 2 years - it was not?

Seems like rules and regulations are only for the little guy / the guy not buddies with Darragh O'Brian or the lad who makes the decisions on the grants.

Dr.Tom

All this story is short is an objection to planning from the Callaghan brothers.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627648#Comment_121627648

Thats the exact issue of I have with Sunday nights episode - people are being refused grants on genuine derelict and vacant homes so how did this couple get them. That house was not derelict or vacant so some shenanigans went on - Im not sure if Dermot was involved in all of this though - he did seem suspicious in the episode that they were living there.

It also now sets a precedent that seemingly any home built in the 60's/70's/80's can apply for the derelict home grant based on Sunday nights episode. That house didnt meet the description of derelict in my view but it must be derelict in the eyes of the authorities thus bringing in a surge of new applications from people who have bought older homes. In my view if that house got the grants than houses similar condition cannot be refused. My parents lovely home that was built in the 70's which they are happy living in must be derelict too in the eyes of the authorities, same with my parents in laws house and lots of houses near me - in fact some of you here on this forum will be shocked to find that you too are living in a derelict house. I had no idea at all that these were derelict houses!

The grants are actually a great idea for genuine derelict houses but after sunday nights episode of RTB its a joke. The grants will be finished within a few months based on the influx of applications there will be now, which cant be refused!

_Puma_

House looked like it needed a "lick of paint" from that articles photos and we are supposed to believe it qualified for the derelict grant...

I have some sympathy for the owners, but they decided to get involved with Bannon and RTE. Fraud with the grant and now the planning irregularities. It's a lesson to steer well clear of them.

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627791#Comment_121627791

You're all over the place here and your political grudges are completely blinding you to the actual facts.

Read the conditions to get the grants. Please, just calm down and read them.

1. The house has to be vacant for 2 years. We have no information to the contrary, so we have to accept that it was and the 50k grant is legit.
2. To get the 20k top-up for 'derelict' status, you need an engineer to certify that it's structurally unsound. You're still thinking of 'derelict' as a house with no electricity and a caved-in roof. That's not the case. Once the engineer signs off the roof was unsound, or that the original extension was a hazard, or whatever, they would qualify.

You're entitled to your political affiliation but these people are entitled to their good name also.

If you think they all committed fraud and then put it on TV, and you've claimed this multiple times, then the issue is you.

ec18

Aside from the the way the grand was spent, if you look at the house.

It needed to be upgraded at least from a heat point of view, the extension or add on at the back needed to be re done as wasn't great. Which was what the grants are for? Is the outrage because the grants free'd up the money for them to build the other parts like the upstairs extension and kitchen? or that they got the grants at all?

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121625643#Comment_121625643

The house was sold in 2022, it is on the property price register in mid 2022. The house was advertised for 250k, it sold for 303k, so it appears there were other bidders? Presumably the other bidder or bidders had a surveyor too, and it stretches credibility to think that if there was an issue with the roof (enough to make the building qualify for the derelict grant and total removal, not repair, of the roof), their surveyor did not pick up on it either? If there was a serious issue with the roof on the main house, it is not apparent on the inside or outside photos, and the house in rural Tipp. would not have sold for 303k?

https://www.maherauctioneers.ie/la-palomera-cashel-co-tipperary.html

There was a lot of taxpayers hard earned money at stake in the Refurbishment for VACANT and DERELICT building grant, and Dermot is setting a precedent around the country. In the interests of transparency, either an explanation or apology from Bannon should be forthcoming or his brand will be damaged even more?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627903#Comment_121627903

I agree with you here.

People are second guessing the opinion of professionals involved and judging a buildings soundness from photos.

Also, as sydthebeat points out, the planning issue may not have been illegal or a contravention of the rules even though I would personally feel it is a charter for the unscrupulous.

The culture/potential for abuse that has been allowed to develop in planning here needs to be adressed, but that has little to do with the programme or the couple.

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627936#Comment_121627936

They said the roof was condemned - now Im no expert but in the walk around the house there was no sign of damp or water damage - if the roof was in an extremely bad state ( and had to be condemned) than surely this would be visible in the house. There was no signs of water damage etc in the auctioneers photos either. To me it looks like in order to qualify for the derelict home grant they needed an engineer to find something structurally bad. Get an engineer mate, aquaintance to condemn the roof and hey presto they qualify for the grant.

_Puma_

The culture of abuse dosent apply to the majority in the industry in this country believe it or not. Most of us stick to the rules.

We all know it goes on, to see it flaunted in our face on a prime time programme by our national broadcaster and to know there has been a "private" corrsepondance with the minister.

A FOI request on the minister should shed a bit more light here since Bannon and RTE have gone to ground. The more that this is dug into the worse it's going to get for all involved.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627903#Comment_121627903

You are totally wrong there. I do not have political grudges, I am not a left wing voter at all. Not that that matters or is relevant to the thread at all. Stop derailing it.

We all saw the family photos, the kids toys etc around the bungalow when Dermot first visited, lots of people think the house was lived in. Ask the neighbours. Even Dermot seemed to have his suspicions, he commented on the flowers in the far corner of the room. It all deserves better explanation.

1. I never said I thought of "derelict" as a house with no electricity and a caved in roof. Come off it, are you claiming the house as advertised in 2022 was derelict? If so, most of the houses in the country are derelict.
2. https://www.maherauctioneers.ie/la-palomera-cashel-co-tipperary.html
3. We have no evidence an engineer signed off the roof was unsound , had to be removed and the end wall had to be at least partially demolished by JCB. It appears surveyors did not pick up on the roof being unsound in 2022 or the bungalow would not have sold for €303,000

Then it appears the work was done without proper planning permission. As others have said, serious questions need to be asked, as it appears there is one rule for some "in the know" and another for the little man?