Room to Improve - Grants 😱

You are wrong there. I, like others, have read the requirements for the grants ( for Refurbishment of Vacant and Derelict houses ) and planning permission as well. Others I know have had discussions with the council for grants for genuinely vacant and genuinely derelict buildings ( much more vacant and derelict than the one in Cashel!) but have been told they cannot demolish half or most of the existing building and make "essentially a new-build".

You say "A qualified professional certified the building as unsound and that is all that is needed to qualify for the grant.". No, that is not the case. Otherwise every well heeled couple in rural Ireland with 700k to splash would be snapping up bungalows and getting the design team to do what they called "essentially a New-Build", without proper planning permission, and getting 99,000 in grants.

The scheme was designed for genuinely Vacant and Derelict houses. Buildings that could be repaired and refurbished and upgraded. What part of Vacant and Derelict do you not understand?

Correct, and I hope someone does put a FOI request in to the minister. Otherwise, where will it all end? I know of one new build ( being done by someone who works in the council ) being done where he kept just part of one wall of an existing cottage : is he getting every grant under the sun too?

I dont know if you can get it on an apartment but if you can find a house that was built before 2008 and you can get an engineer to find something wrong with the building than go for the grant. I dont see why you wouldnt be entitled to it after Sundays RTI.

I think everyone that buys an older home should now be applying for the grants and should get approved- thats what I took from that episode.

This in itself is dodgy advice that people are complaining about.

That is not and should not be the case. The needs to be something actually wrong/unsafe to have it declared derelict. What we don't know is what the professional found to be wrong with this building that deemed it unsafe.

You are right it shouldnt be the case but it is highly probable that it happens!!!

It was a TV entertainment not a forensic investigation.

'Where was the independent professional'?

Where you expecting him/her to be grilled on their findings? jaysus

😁

ah lads this nearly needs to be moved to conspiracy theories at this stage rather than construction and planning

Of course but you are deluded if you think it doesnt happen!

This is the exact pandemonium that is happening in that department right now. In some of the construction Facebook groups people are asking this exact question and the consensus is do not go near this grant for the time being.

The likely outcome is the engineer is going to be thrown under the bus, the department will wash its hands of the issue, and we will never know what the ministers "interpretation" of it when he spoke to Bannon unless someone puts him to to the pin of his collar to get answers.

Sorry to disabuse you of yet another of your notions, here it is being advertised under 'Entertainment'

Again, you are accusing these people of fraud because you don't have all the information.

If there wasn't evidence of structural issues, signed off by a qualified professional, they would not have got the grant. Simple as that.

It's their business what they paid for the original house. Everything else is your own begrudgery and bitterness.

Exactly. Would it not make sense, even from a 'dramatic TV point of view', to show the issues with the 'condemned' roof on the program. Something, even some photos. Or an interview with the engineer who 'condemned' it.

This would take away all the doubt about the derelict grant. The fact that it was just glossed over makes it look like something fishy went on.

I don't think you understand - there is a great deal of housing stock in the state in worse condition than that bungalow as sold. Housing that's lived in and not eligible for this vacant/ derelict money. What we saw represents in many peoples views, an abuse of the system. If that's good enough here, then the same funding should be released to all home owners who need to upgrade their dwellings. Fairness is important in these matters.

There are grants available for home improvements https://www.seai.ie/grants/home-energy-grants/individual-grants/

It's a whole other argument on current dwelling houses not being up to standard, either through neglect due to financial constraints or just laziness. My parents upgraded things when they could so even though our house is over 100 years old it's relatively modern, it would still need work to get it properly insulated though. I know plenty houses where they haven't made improvements even though they could have and they're at the stage where they'll either be knocked or left for the vacant property grant when they pass.

No she did not. Twice I re-watched the Q.S.'s comments at the end of the programme. Unless the Q.S. had two sets of comments on the costings towards the end of the programme, which I don't think so? She mentioned figures of the build costing 338k plus "extras" of 25k making a final account value of €363,000 , which she said equated to a cost per square m of €1972, and that it was "essentially a New Build". She did NOT mention in that piece about joists being rotten. Nor was there evidence of water or ceiling damage in the auctioneers photos taken the previous year ( 2022). And would bidding on the bungalow have gone from 250k to 303k the previous year if joists were that rotten that the whole roof had to be condemned?

There is a list of all professionals associated with the building on the R to I website, but no independent engineer or specialist who would have been necessary to sign the roof off as condemned if they were to comply with the conditions of the grant. So why was that?

So it gets more curious as time goes on. Much worse and more serious than Tubs secret deal if you ask me. This one has legs.