Government reduces building regulations: we're off again!

From Fine Gael:

New rules will remove requirement for one-off homes to be inspected

From Dublin City Council:

Dublin CC proposing to relax minimum apartment standards (Dublin City Council will now allow builders to make apartments 20% smaller and reduce the number of windows/light in each apartment)

With this vote-gathering, construction industry placating stunt, Fine Gael has now firmly become Fianna Fáil, and DCC has clearly learnt nothing from the smurf apartments/can't swing a cat in apartments it allowed Liam Carroll and the like to build all across Dublin. We've a very long history of shoddy sub-standard houses, dodgy builders and environmentally disastrous planning permissions and checks in this state. And we have a very long history of politicians caving into builders and developers and reducing protections because it costs said builders etc too much to build better quality homes. Let's build crap on the cheap, and people can then insulate them properly down the road.

In the recession, many of these regulations were finally tightened. Now, in a move reminiscent of Noel Dempsey and other Fianna Fáil ministers for the Environment during the Celtic Bubble, Fine Gael's Paudie Coffey has decided to remove many restrictions and checks again on one-off housing - about 50% of all new housing in Ireland last year was "one off".

"One-off homes and house extensions will be exempt from regulations introduced just last year to prevent shoddy building work, it has been confirmed.

The Government will today announce that from September these properties will not be subject to a formal sign-off from a building professional to ensure they are built in line with the building code.... The move to exempt one-off homes comes amid concerns that the cost of inspecting a property was too expensive, with suggestions that complying with the regulations costs up to €16,000, and was adding considerably to building costs.
Last year, some 5,171 homes - almost half the total constructed in Ireland - were one-off...."

Decoded: the lads back home are giving out about the cost of building houses to this standard. It will lose us votes in the next election, so let's remove the regulations and get those votes.

This is so painfully short-sighted and precisely the sort of myopic stunt pulled by parochial politicians which got the construction industry, and more importantly this society, into massive trouble. What next? Bank regulations will be removed/reduced because they, too, cost banks too much money?

That's precisely - precisely - what's going to happen next because, apparently, "it'll be different next time". Isn't it always!

Fine Gael should go into coalition with Fianna Fáil because they are bubble-hunting short-sighted birds of a feather who will sacrifice us all to serve their grubby little sectoral interests. "We didn't think" - you all know bloody well where this reduction of regulations is going. Completely irresponsible, and we will pay the price in a few years time - once again.

/end rant

Wacker The Attacker

sure you cant beat a nice bit of an aul housing bubble

Cookie_Monster

, just

and maybe a bit of :mad::mad::mad:

Junkyard Tom

"The needle returns to the start of the song and we all sing along like before."

Link by Request:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxbIU0X-lCI

TheLastMohican

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The needle returns to the start of the song and we all sing along like before.

Link to youtube please!

BlaasForRafa

The return of the shoebox apartment

conorh91

As a formerly-typical Fine Gael voter, I find this sickening.

Renua have my vote right now, it's about time we had an economic / social policy that didn't simply pander to vested interests. The legislative agenda of FG in office has been so disappointing.

They are nothing but Fanna Fáil in sheep's clothing.

Seriously… how are they substantively different? Anyone… ?

TheLastMohican

TheLastMohican wrote: »

Link to youtube please!

Thanks. My life is now complete.:D

suicide_circus

If there's one thing Dublin doesn't need is for apartments to be shìtter. So in order for much needed housing to come on line we need to allow it to be smaller and darker?

The_Valeyard

Really silly idea. No point building shoe boxes.

mikom

conorh91 wrote: »

As a formerly-typical Fine Gael voter, I find this sickening.

Renua have my vote right now,

Lol.

Vinculus

The vertically challenged vampires in our society will be so pleased about these changes.

lertsnim

Does this surprise anybody? Fine Gael have to keep their developer buddys sweet.

ezra_pound

lertsnim wrote: »

Does this surprise anybody? Fine Gael have to keep their developer buddys sweet.

Isn't DCC dominated by sinn fein? Or am I missing something?

Nodin

Not inspecting "one off homes".....sure what could possibly go wrong? Fire trap you say? And well for them, in my day you were lucky to have a fire, let alone something to trap it in.

tritium

So .....

DCC, dominated by Sinn Fein (>25%of seats) and independents, is allowing smaller apartments, but its the gubermints fault.....

....one off housing and home extensions don't need to to be inspected anymore but its the gubermint pandying to the developers of massive estates.......

And this is all the fault of the gubermint

Well done OP, I'll just file this with all the other conspiracy theories now....

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Christ on a bike I've been in some ****hole apartments in Dublin already. Small, dark and damp shoe boxes with barely enough space between the bed and the fridge to fit the oven. The plan now is to allow them to be smaller? I wonder would the drivers behind this decision like to live in one of these upcoming hovels? I somehow doubt it.

I do think something needs to be done about the housing shortage as its getting beyond ridiculous at this stage, but this is not a solution.

Menas

How small do the regulations allow apartments to be now?

I remember living happily in a 40sq Metre 1 bed apartment years ago. Smaller could have been tricky...but handy for cooking your dinner whilst sitting on the toilet.

BattleCorp

The new regulations for housebuilding were ridiculous though. The extra expense those regulations imposed on self-builders was helping prevent people from building one-off houses. They needed certification for this, that and the other. It isn't necessary for one-off housing.

Realistically, these changes are pretty much only going to affect people who are building their own house. It's not normally economically viable for a builder to build one-off houses for sale, economies of scale and all that.

If I'm building my own house, for myself to live in, I'm unlikely to take shortcuts and build a death trap.

The inspections are still there for larger building projects such as estates etc.

Making apartments smaller is a dumb idea. You'll have families stuck in them, with no quality of life. A small apartment would only really suit a single person, or a couple. Throw kids into the mix and it's not healthy.

the groutch

assuming that the rent on these is reasonably lower than those that are at the lower end of the current size limits, this is a good idea as the will benefit a lot of people, eg.

- people whose family home is outside Dublin, but work in Dublin, who want to stay there 4 nights a week rather than commute every day, and want to keep that extra rent to a minimum.

- those who are saving for a mortgage, and want to keep their expenses to a minimum while doing so

- unemployed people who are struggling to get accommodation via the RAS, and might otherwise be stuck in some form of emergency accomodation.

it will also likely reduce the amount of house shares, as more individuals/couples will be able to afford to live by themselves, thus freeing up houses for those who need them.

osarusan

the groutch wrote: »

assuming that the rent on these is reasonably lower than those that are at the lower end of the current size limits, this is a good idea as the will benefit a lot of people, eg.

Looking at some of the prices being charged for tiny apartments which are obviously half-arsed garage conversions or corridor conversions, I wouldn't think this is a safe assumption.

Daith

the groutch wrote: »

assuming that the rent on these is reasonably lower

That's the biggest issue and assumption. I don't think it's going to be the case.

Menas

Menas wrote: »

How small do the regulations allow apartments to be now?

I remember living happily in a 40sq Metre 1 bed apartment years ago. Smaller could have been tricky...but handy for cooking your dinner whilst sitting on the toilet.

45sqM is the new min size, down from 55sqM.

45sqM is fine for a single person, tricky for a couple but impossible with kids or non-couple adults living together.

I remember when I lived in my 40sqM apartment there was a chinese flat in the same building. There were about 6 adults living in the place - same size.
Dont know how they did it.

foggy_lad

The rents on smaller shoeboxes won't be lower! These people will just drive up the rents for the larger shoeboxes to staggering amounts leaving an even bigger gap.

tritium

tritium wrote: »

So .....

DCC, dominated by Sinn Fein (>25%of seats) and independents, is allowing smaller apartments, but its the gubermints fault.....

Actually, if you took the trouble to read the article rather than trying to be obnoxious, you would find out Sinn Féin has nothing to do with the DCC proposals because they are from DCC's planners who have been lobbied by the CIF and RIAI, both of which have vested interests in planning regulations being reduced.

Now, if Sinn Féin actually goes along with these proposals you will have a point (future tense). As they have not, you do not (present tense). However, the point you're clearly incapable of grasping is this: DCC planners are allowed propose these regulations because the central government refuses to set a minimum standard across the state. If they did so, DCC could not breach them. These proposals would be legal simply because your friends in Fine Gael are, like their Fianna Fáil antecedents, far more concerned with cosying up to developers and local interests than to keeping a high standard.

...one off housing and home extensions don't need to to be inspected anymore but its the gubermint pandying to the developers of massive estates....... And this is all the fault of the gubermint

Had you read that article you'd find magic sentences like this: "The Government will today announce that from September these properties will not be subject to a formal sign-off from a building professional to ensure they are built in line with the building code..." Yes, the government. Indeed you'll even find the name of the Fine Gael minister for Planning and Housing who is responsible for the removal of these regulations: Paudie Coffey TD.

Ben D Bus

BattleCorp wrote: »

The extra expense those regulations imposed on self-builders was helping prevent people from building one-off houses.

A good thing, surely?

Pepe LeFrits

Deleted User wrote: »

Had you read that article you'd find magic sentences like this: "The Government will today announce that from September these properties will not be subject to a formal sign-off from a building professional to ensure they are built in line with the building code..."

... which in fairness, is then followed by:

However, they will be subject to inspection from local authorities, according to Planning and Housing Minister Paudie Coffey.

Sounds like it is transferring the cost (of paying an architect/engineer) from individuals and families to the local authorities (for inspections). Sounds good to me.

ScumLord

BattleCorp wrote: »

The new regulations for housebuilding were ridiculous though. The extra expense those regulations imposed on self-builders was helping prevent people from building one-off houses. They needed certification for this, that and the other. It isn't necessary for one-off housing.

Why isn't it necessary? What is it about one off housing that makes them so intrinsically safe they don't have to take the same safety measures as houses in the city. The implication there is the lifes of the people living in a one off house isn't worth worrying about when compared to an apartment complex that might have five people living separately.


There are some terrible one off houses thrown up around the country. Especially the ones for rent where the landlord can just keep renting to new people and probably get the state to pay people's rent. It's very handy for the landlord because they'll keep getting money off the state for rent allowance and the state doesn't give a shyte about the conditions of the house. Which means the people living in the house are stuck with terrible conditions that will never get improved.

If anything they should have brought in more restrictions and it should be more difficult to build a house on it's own in the country. One off housing is a mess in this country and it should be stopped.

BattleCorp

Originally Posted by BattleCorp
The extra expense those regulations imposed on self-builders was helping prevent people from building one-off houses.

Ben D Bus wrote: »

A good thing, surely?

Why?

I'm from a town and it was always a dream to build my own house on my own plot of land. I don't see a lot wrong with buying a site and building a house.

Likewise, someone who came from the country might like to build a house to be near their parents etc.

You could build a nice house outside of pretty much any rural town in Ireland for the price of a shoebox apartment in some areas of Dublin.

BattleCorp

ScumLord wrote: »

If anything they should have brought in more restrictions and it should be more difficult to build a house on it's own in the country. One off housing is a mess in this country and it should be stopped.

Why is it a mess?

Not everybody wants to live in a town.

I used to live in a town and now I live in a nice peaceful part of the countryside. I don't see anything wrong with wanting that.

tritium

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Actually, if you took the trouble to read the article rather than trying to be obnoxious, you would find out Sinn Féin has nothing to do with the DCC proposals because they are from DCC's planners who have been lobbied by the CIF and RIAI, both of which have vested interests in planning regulations being reduced.

Now, if Sinn Féin actually goes along with these proposals you will have a point (future tense). As they have not, you do not (present tense). However, the point you're clearly incapable of grasping is this: DCC planners are allowed propose these regulations because the central government refuses to set a minimum standard across the state. If they did so, DCC could not breach them. These proposals would be legal simply because your friends in Fine Gael are, like their Fianna Fáil antecedents, far more concerned with cosying up to developers and local interests than to keeping a high standard.



Had you read that article you'd find magic sentences like this: "The Government will today announce that from September these properties will not be subject to a formal sign-off from a building professional to ensure they are built in line with the building code..." Yes, the government. Indeed you'll even find the name of the Fine Gael minister for Planning and Housing who is responsible for the removal of these regulations: Paudie Coffey TD.

Something a bit pot/ kettle about complaining I didn't read an article that, as pepe points out later, you clearly didn't bother to read yourself . Because I'm struggling to see what one off housing and home extensions have to do with big business, especially when the article specifically notes this won't apply to developments of two or more units!

So tell me this, does this completely misrepresented article in any way demonstrate that the gubermint/ fine Gael/labour are in any way trying to get into cahoots with developers as was the assertion? Have fine Gael or labour 'gone along' with these proposals (future tense) any more than sinn fein have? Or is all the crap you've posted about 'cosying up' just one big unsubstantiated whine?

ScumLord

BattleCorp wrote: »

Why is it a mess?

Not everybody wants to live in a town.

I used to live in a town and now I live in a nice peaceful part of the countryside. I don't see anything wrong with wanting that.

There's nothing wrong with wanting it, plenty of people want it. Doesn't mean they should be allowed. One off housing causes all sorts of infrastructure hassles and it's ruining what countryside we have left. Simple as that. Proper planning means stopping people from building houses wherever they feel like.

Ben D Bus

BattleCorp wrote: »

Why?

I'm from a town and it was always a dream to build my own house on my own plot of land. I don't see a lot wrong with buying a site and building a house.

Likewise, someone who came from the country might like to build a house to be near their parents etc.

You could build a nice house outside of pretty much any rural town in Ireland for the price of a shoebox apartment in some areas of Dublin.

As ScumLord says, it makes the provision of infrastructure very difficult. Water, electricity, broadband, postal services all end up costing a fortune and that cost isn't entirely borne by the one-off development. Public transport is almost impossible to provide effectively and a huge reliance on private cars is generated. And it spoils what's left of the countryside.

Basically, with few exceptions, it's very poor planning to allow one-off housing.

steddyeddy

I generally think legislation should provide some benefit to a majority or large number of people. Who does this benefit exactly?

Cookie_Monster

BattleCorp wrote: »

Why?

I'm from a town and it was always a dream to build my own house on my own plot of land. I don't see a lot wrong with buying a site and building a house.

Likewise, someone who came from the country might like to build a house to be near their parents etc.

You could build a nice house outside of pretty much any rural town in Ireland for the price of a shoebox apartment in some areas of Dublin.

how do any of the regulations prevent you from doing that as they stand though? They add a minor extra cost burden to ensure the house is built to a proper standard, that's all.

BattleCorp

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how do any of the regulations prevent you from doing that as they stand though? They add a minor extra cost burden to ensure the house is built to a proper standard, that's all.

It can add thousands to the cost of building a house. This article says on average it can add €16,000 to the price of building the house. I've a mate who had to pay over €20,000 for certification for this, that and the other in the house. I'm not Bill Gates so I wouldn't consider €20,000 a minor cost.

I'm all for building houses to a good standard, but paying somebody the equivalent of €500 per hour + to approve the work that has been done seems excessive to me.

BattleCorp

Ben D Bus wrote: »

As ScumLord says, it makes the provision of infrastructure very difficult. Water, electricity, broadband, postal services all end up costing a fortune and that cost isn't entirely borne by the one-off development. Public transport is almost impossible to provide effectively and a huge reliance on private cars is generated. And it spoils what's left of the countryside.

Basically, with few exceptions, it's very poor planning to allow one-off housing.

The state isn't burdened with the cost of providing my water. I paid for it and continue to pay for it myself, at no cost to the taxpayer, unlike town water which is paid for by the state.

Regarding electricity and broadband, as with pretty much every road in Ireland, there is electricity and phone lines running along the road outside my house. I paid to get a technician to drag a line into my house and sort me out with a supply. Same effort really as connecting somebody in a city.

The state doesn't have to worry about providing me with public transport, there is none. Yes, I have to rely on cars but city dwellers have cars too.

I'll agree with you that postal services are more difficult to rural houses.

I'll agree with you too that rural houses can spoil the look of the countryside but to be fair, the councils won't let you build in the countryside unless you have some sort of tie to the area.

Penn

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Sounds like it is transferring the cost (of paying an architect/engineer) from individuals and families to the local authorities (for inspections). Sounds good to me.

No, the trouble is, the local authorities are only required to inspect 15% of buildings. That's their target. And those buildings still have to be inspected by the client's architect/engineer/surveyor anyway.

What will happen is that for one-off houses or extensions, regulations will likely revert back to where they were 18 months ago, namely architects/engineers/surveyors will be engaged to inspect the on-going works in order to satisfy mortgage requirements (eg. interim mortgage payments being based on percentage of work done and that work done is in compliance with required regulations) and to certify the building at the end for compliance with planning & building regulations (required for mortgage and also for selling on house).

The problem with BCAR was always that it made it too onerous on the professional signing off the project at the end even though they can't possibly inspect every aspect of the work (due to not being on site every day and not being qualified to inspect some work eg. electrics). That's where the increase in professional fees came from, it required far more inspections, deskwork and chasing documents.

To be honest, I don't see it changing too much. I'd predict many mortgage lenders will likely want the same amount of work/inspections carried out as if the building was subject to BCAR, in order to minimise their own risk. And many professionals will likely try to keep the same standard of inspections/deskwork for all projects.

Making one-offs and extensions exempt from BCAR is a poor decision imo. What they should have done is simply limited the liability professionals face for those projects while maintaining the standards set out to be achieved, as it results in better construction, better value for money and more peace of mind for the client as they can have more certainty in the quality of their building, which is the most expensive thing most people will ever own.