Protected Structure

LowKeyReturn

Does anyone have any experience with these? Are their different grades or is it a case by case basis.

I'm looking at a place in D3 that has protected status that is absolutely gutted. I'm prepared to sink in 100K to the place but it needs everything done from roof down. I'm guessing it wouldn't even scratch the surface of a project of this type?

http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=617968

is the property for giggles.

I'm aware of the consequences for owning it and not complying with restoration orders so a limited number of 'you're fecking bonkers' responses please.

the_syco

Why do you think it's protected? Also, you'd have to use specific materials to do it up, and you'd have to hire someone that will ensure it gets done up properly. IIRC, you'd have little input on what is put where.

LowKeyReturn

the_syco wrote: »

Why do you think it's protected? Also, you'd have to use specific materials to do it up, and you'd have to hire someone that will ensure it gets done up properly. IIRC, you'd have little input on what is put where.

I have some inside info on the back story and it's on the register of protected structures. It's also in the council meeting minutes but I can't workout whether it's the façade or the entire building including the interior. Not that there is much of an interior!

I think this is perhaps just another mad notion... Thanks for the reply though!

It's in a bit of a quandary, that anyone rich enough to be able to do it up would have no interest living in the area and the cost of doing it up would not reap a return for the investor. That leaves nutters like me.

air

I have heard several anecdotes from architects regarding financial disasters encountered by owners of listed structures in this country. This was despite the owners having paid for the very best of professional advice. I wouldn't touch one personally.

IMHO the whole area is ripe for radical overhaul in this country. The first step would be the removal of 95% of the properties currently listed.
Urban areas need to be allowed to change with the times. I fully agree with the need to preserve the best examples of particular genres of architecture, however I believe we have gone completely OTT. This is stifling urban renewal and is to the detriment of the quality of life of those that have to live in these buildings.

The property you have linked to didn't have any architectural merit when it was built - it's an ugly building. I dont' see the point in giving it protected status simply because it's old.

Jimmy Garlic

The irony is that many buildings in that state that are "protected" are doomed to crumble. Very few people would be willing to take on the hassle.

Marcusm

Although some places ont he lists are marked "exterior only" etc, this one doesn't seem to be. The system seems to be a bit half hearted - as you'll be aware the UK uses a grading system (grade 1, grade II, grade II*) so that you have an idea upfront whether it is the whole place or just, for example, the exterior to maintain symmetry with the rest of the street. Interestingly this is the only strucutre on that street to be protcted and it's not that interesting. It would seem more sensible to retain some of the vernacular brickwork on the terrace but this has not been done. If there is nothing of the original interior remaining, it would be hard to see that there is anything to conserve. When discussing this before with a conservation specialist (not architect), he stated his experience as being the preservation, patching etc of existing features rather than a destroyed shell requiring to be turned into some pastiche of the original through entirely newly created plasterwork etc.

That being said, I suspect it depends ont he conservation officer. On one property (in bedsits) I looked at, the documentation recorded bizarre exchanges with the conservation officer who refused to allow fire proof treatments to be applied to original plasterwork despite legal requirements for fireproofing to be undertaken. Meanwhile, 10 doors down the identical house was only listed for the exterior as it had been left open to the elements long enough for the interior features to have been destroyed.

xper

Bringing an old, derelict 158 sq.m. house up to modern standards on a budget of 100k would be a challenge even without having to deal with the constraints, possibly considerable, of a protected status. The potential to run over budget is enormous on this kind of undertaking and you really need to have the means to deal with that possibility or you may well end up with zero cash and an uninhabitable construction site. Glancing at the recent sales prices in the no-so-des-res locality, the possibility of turning a profit, if that is the goal, seems limited too.

LowKeyReturn

xper wrote: »

Bringing an old, derelict 158 sq.m. house up to modern standards on a budget of 100k would be a challenge even without having to deal with the constraints, possibly considerable, of a protected status. The potential to run over budget is enormous on this kind of undertaking and you really need to have the means to deal with that possibility or you may well end up with zero cash and an uninhabitable construction site. Glancing at the recent sales prices in the no-so-des-res locality, the possibility of turning a profit, if that is the goal, seems limited too.

I've approached an architect and the council. I'll update this thread as I go. Plan is to get a roof on and the top floor done for c.100K and then do the basement of the structure investing another 100K. The house will be for us and not a development for profit as such.

Taking a number of gambles if we go through with this. One being the area. I have to admit The idea of sash windows at junkie eye level isn't all that appealing.

hfallada

There is a deralict house around the corner from me that was built in 1740. It's not particular nice or special. It's listed and there is a 500 page report on what has to be done on it and the materials to be used. It needs over €500 k minimum and it still wouldn't be a great family home.

Alot of listed buildings will just decay as few people have the time and money for them.

Jo King

Marcusm wrote: »

On one property (in bedsits) I looked at, the documentation recorded bizarre exchanges with the conservation officer who refused to allow fire proof treatments to be applied to original plasterwork despite legal requirements for fireproofing to be undertaken.

It is only a legal requirement to fireproof if you want to continue in bedsits. Most bedsits simply can't be brought up to modern standards and the use has to be abandoned.

littleredspot

I was interested in that house the last time it sold. The auction was packed and I think the est was 500-600000. As far as I recall it went for over 900000. There was a planning application to turn it into apartments I think.

I'm guessing it's listed for more than cosmetic reasons. Afaik it would have been the priests house for the adjoining church. They used to own quite a bit of the area.

That road would be an absolute nightmare for delivery/skip trucks. I (like many others) park on it daily dropping kids to the school, and it's very tight down the end.

That said, I've often thought its the best house in the area. It's certainly one of the only detached houses I can think of that close to the city center. It's a very quiet road, I doubt you'll have any junkie troubles.

littleredspot

I was about to suggest this to you if you fancy a challenge, but somebodies beaten you to it... http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=707598

LowKeyReturn

littleredspot wrote: »

I was about to suggest this to you if you fancy a challenge, but somebodies beaten you to it... http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=707598

The place on Waterloo Ave makes that place in Fairview look practically habitable! It's a shame I didn't see that when it was for sale, that's the kind of place I'm looking for. That one seems to benefit from a decent roof.

I did hear there was quite a bit of push back from the local residents. In fact my understanding is petitions and so forth were signed and the application to list the building came from them. I'm hoping, as I don't want to develop the site only renovate it, the inconvenience of builders in and out would be off set by the fact that they won't have a derelict building at the bottom of, what is actually a very nice road. There isn't actually that much that needs to be taken out via Waterloo Ave. The roof waste can go out via Nottingham Street.

valleyoftheunos

Have you informed Kevin McCloud and Grand Designs about your plans:?:P

Best of Luck if you decide to go for it.

LowKeyReturn

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Have you informed Kevin McCloud and Grand Designs about your plans:?:P

Best of Luck if you decide to go for it.

I might actually do something like that if we do! There are some grants etc that might be available but a nice fee from a TV show would be nice.

To be fair at the moment it's just fun imagining what could be. I suspect the council's conservation team will bring me back down to earth with a bump.

Ray Palmer

I remember the house too. It is shame to see it in such a shape. I can't imagine it has a preservation order on he inside.

They were built to last but damp is a huge problem when they are left vacant. Lots of wood in the walls.

the_syco

Seems it may have rear access from Nottingham Street?

From looking at OSI, it seems the amount of land that it had around it has remained relatively unchanged for the past 100 or so years, up until number 12 was built. Google maps shows the destruction of a building of some sort (shed?) in the "back garden" (to the houses right), that had existed in some fashion or other.

Pages 41-43 @ http://www.dublincity.ie/YourCouncil/LocalAreaServices/CentralArea/Documents/Agenda%20January%2008.pdf

Seems they wanted it protected to stop

Planning permission sought to demolish existing house and build a four
storey over basement block of apartments

So it was a good idea to get it protected once, rather than having to stop multiple planning applications.

You were saying 100k for the roof? I think you have the right idea.

The structure has hipped roof with original roof tiles and two chimneys with original clay pots

We're talking 1830's, so yeah, best of luck getting those tiles!

Also, the boundary wall between it and number 12 is f**king close! Looking at the OSI, it's not totally clear how much land you get with it.

Looking at this picture; http://goo.gl/maps/7tDtB the trees between number 11 and 12 are unknown. From looking at the OSI map, they are enclosed inside a box, which I assume is part of the property of number 11 as it's in-line with the bottom of the steps of number 11, but not totally sure.

It'd say if you were to apply for planning permission for internal only, to a limited degree (electrical wiring, etc), you'd get it, but they seem fairly set on keeping the external appearances, as seen in http://www.dublincity.ie/YourCouncil/LocalAreaServices/CentralArea/Documents/CAC_Agenda_May_2012.pdf on page 41 when they fixed the chimney.

The PP listed the price going down steadily enough (bar a significant drop).

One point to note; bottom of page 15 in http://www.dublincity.ie/YourCouncil/LocalAreaServices/CentralArea/Documents/Agenda%20July%2008.pdf it seems that work may have been carried out on the inside of the building, so it may not be as bad on the inside as thought?

=-=

The access to the rear was created in 2007 (ref 14, page 43) was done so illegally. From that date stamp, and the above works, it seems it was created with a view to make a driveway in the rear. If said destruction of the back wall could be legitimised, it would mean that the owner could have their own parking, at the cost of having a small rear garden.

Meh, quite day at work.

littleredspot

Didn't realise it was on sale for so long. There's never been a sign.

There happened to be a lady viewing it today. Not quite sure what the set up was though. There was an estate agent there, but he wasn't selling it. He just told me that I had to arrange a viewing with the owner. There also seemed to be a builder who opened it up. The Ea was keen to push how much work there was, and that the protected structure bit would cost a fortune.

the_syco

littleredspot wrote: »

Didn't realise it was on sale for so long. There's never been a sign.

I'd day sign tend to "not last long", as the locals seem to not want anything built there, or perhaps even done to the house.

littleredspot wrote: »

There happened to be a lady viewing it today. Not quite sure what the set up was though. There was an estate agent there, but he wasn't selling it. He just told me that I had to arrange a viewing with the owner. There also seemed to be a builder who opened it up. The Ea was keen to push how much work there was, and that the protected structure bit would cost a fortune.

I'd say he didn't want the hassle of selling it to someone who is looking for a cheap finished house, as opposed to a cheap house that needs a feck load of cash put in to finish it.

=-=

Also, it seems it's been at €169k since the 26th June 2012, so the OP may be able to push another €15k to €25k off it.

LowKeyReturn

I'll share what I know here as people have been so helpful. At worst someone else takes it on and I'm saved from making a huge potential mistake!

Inside is completely derelict. If you look at the pictures from the 2008 report you'll see two chimneys. One of them is now a pile of bricks inside the house. There are numerous holes in the roof and water damage throughout.

Downstairs flooring is completely gone in one room (literally to the foundations) and the rest is, in my uneducated opinion, completely unsalvageable. No plumbing as far as I can see and I think its fair to assume it needs wiring for electricity.

I wont speak for the owner but viewing doesn't seem to be a problem. Ring him and he'll tell you how to get in. There is some interest in the property but not at the levels advertised. I as quoted a figure, which to be fair to the owner, I won't disclose. I was also told some lowball offers had been rejected.

I'm looking to spead c.100K of roof + wiring, plumbing, kitchen, bathroom (both basic) and plastering of 3 - 4 rooms. I don't think it's a goer tbh.

EDIT: Land with it (assuming seaches come back okay etc and all is as it appears) is pretty good BUT the boundaries to no.12 and the not so great looking flats behind it are non-existent, we are talking 4ft from the back door. There is also a massive metal fence behind with the razor points on put up by the council. None of the existing windows look out over the 'garden' oddly. Views is not something that would come with this place.

the_syco

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

No plumbing as far as I can see and I think its fair to assume it needs wiring for electricity.

Depending on the protecting, plumbing could be a problem. A couple of thatched cottages (the type passed down from father to son, etc) were made protected down south of Ireland as they "looked nice", but unfortunately this then meant the owners couldn't wire the house by drilling holes in the walls, and a whole lot of other things. In the end, people ended up building a new house down the road, and moving out of the protected cottage (the owners had no say in the matter).

As for the floor caving in, this would mean that the base is not solid brick, which is odd, as most of the old houses do. It'd also mean that you'd need to check how the walls are built, and how solid their foundations are.

If I were you, I'd get a surveyor that specialises in protected structures, and give you a ball-park sum of what it'd cost.

LowKeyReturn

the_syco wrote: »

As for the floor caving in, this would mean that the base is not solid brick, which is odd, as most of the old houses do. It'd also mean that you'd need to check how the walls are built, and how solid their foundations are.

If I were you, I'd get a surveyor that specialises in protected structures, and give you a ball-park sum of what it'd cost.

It's pretty solid so may be brick with timers on top? (one upon a time)

I'm waiting to hear back from the council conservation guys, then I'm going to sound out the owner in regards to what we'd realistically offer. If all that goes to plan then I've an architects company with experience in the area (both geographic and subject) lined up.

Jesus this flight of fancy seems to be taking on a rather serious tone. I was in the place telling the wife I wouldn't touch it with a 15ft barge pole less than a week ago! I only went to view it as I was looking at something else and the description of gaining access was too much to resist!

Ray Palmer

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

It's pretty solid so may be brick with timers on top? (one upon a time)

Not a chance. It will have structural wood in the brick wall too. It's how they built these houses. There is a good chance it doesn't have a foundations either. I own a property around the corner built roughly the same time and have done a lot of work on it.

valleyoftheunos

If it needs all the work stated not a hope that will happen for €100K.

the_syco

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

It's pretty solid so may be brick with timers on top? (one upon a time)

In one of the links in my previous post, it was noted that it seemed the building originated around the same time as one of the churches. You may be able to find out what works they had to do regarding the walls, as I'm unsure how deep they dug in the 1830's for the foundations of a house, and how much it has since sank?

LowKeyReturn

Council have come back to me in very short order, I've some reading to do; there is a file on the property and I'll pop back and report. Looking very unlikely.