"As it stands, cabins up to 25 square metres are allowed to be built without planning

granitequarry

I have read in several places in the media that cabins up to 25 square metres are allowed to be built without planning permission.
"As it stands, cabins up to 25 square metres are allowed to be built without planning permission" -- Joe.ie
"[font=source-sans-pro, arial, sans-serif]Currently, cabins up to 25 square metres are allowed without the need for planning permission." -- N[/font][font=source-sans-pro, arial, sans-serif]ewstalk.com[/font]
[font=source-sans-pro, arial, sans-serif]If somebody builds a [/font][font=source-sans-pro, arial, sans-serif]25 square metres log cabin to live in, and there are no objections from neighbours, is there anything the authorities can do to prevent this?[/font]

wexie

building and living in aren't the same though.

I think under some circumstances you can build a shed/cabin up to 25m

You can't however then decide to use it as a house.

Eric Cartman

cabins / sheds etc... up to 25 and leaving over 25 of garden left yes, but not for habitation, you can build an office or a gym shed sauna whatever but not a residence.

theres a new line that these companies are trotting out calling them 'temporary structures' now too, which isn't legal.

There is no way of building any separate building to your house for somebody to live in without planning permission.

Metric Tensor

Replace "cabin" with "shed" and it's slightly more accurate but still doesn't list all the provisos and conditions that apply to such an undertaking.

Nor does it consider the building regulations.

Any "journalist" or "news source" that prints such nonsense has clearly done no research and just trotted out what a manufacturer with a vested interest has told them. It seems to apply almost across the board to news reports about anything technical. With a few rare and notable exceptions it's just regurgitation of advertising fluff without one iota of research.

To sum up: There is absolutely no structure that a person can live in that does not require planning permission. This applies to tents, caravans, sheds, modules, cabins, log cabins, garden rooms, pool houses, pods or any other fancy name the PR department come up with.

Poor Uncle Tom

granitequarry wrote: »

I have read in several places in the media that cabins up to 25 square metres are allowed to be built without planning permission.
"As it stands, cabins up to 25 square metres are allowed to be built without planning permission" -- Joe.ie
"[font=source-sans-pro, arial, sans-serif]Currently, cabins up to 25 square metres are allowed without the need for planning permission." -- N[/font][font=source-sans-pro, arial, sans-serif]ewstalk.com[/font]
[font=source-sans-pro, arial, sans-serif]If somebody builds a [/font][font=source-sans-pro, arial, sans-serif]25 square metres log cabin to live in, and there are no objections from neighbours, is there anything the authorities can do to prevent this?[/font]

What you should actually be quoting is the regulation in relation to the actual exemption...

CLASS 3

The construction, erection or placing within the curtilage of a house of any tent, awning, shade or other object, greenhouse, garage, store, shed or other similar structure.

1. No such structure shall be constructed, erected or placed forward of the front wall of a house.

2. The total area of such structures constructed, erected or placed within the curtilage of a house shall not, taken together with any other such structures previously constructed, erected or placed within the said curtilage, exceed 25 square metres.

3. The construction, erection or placing within the curtilage of a house of any such structure shall not reduce the amount of private open space reserved exclusively for the use of the occupants of the house to the rear or to the side of the house to less than 25 square metres.

4. The external finishes of any garage or other structure constructed, erected or placed to the side of a house, and the roof covering where any such structure has a tiled or slated roof, shall conform with those of the house.

5. The height of any such structure shall not exceed, in the case of a building with a tiled or slated pitched roof, 4 metres or, in any other case, 3 metres.

6. The structure shall not be used for human habitation or for the keeping of pigs, poultry, pigeons, ponies or horses, or for any other purpose other than a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the house as such.

RV2

granitequarry wrote: »

I have read in several places in the media that cabins up to 25 square metres are allowed to be built without planning permission.
"As it stands, cabins up to 25 square metres are allowed to be built without planning permission" -- Joe.ie
"[font=source-sans-pro, arial, sans-serif]Currently, cabins up to 25 square metres are allowed without the need for planning permission." -- N[/font][font=source-sans-pro, arial, sans-serif]ewstalk.com[/font]
[font=source-sans-pro, arial, sans-serif]If somebody builds a [/font][font=source-sans-pro, arial, sans-serif]25 square metres log cabin to live in, and there are no objections from neighbours, is there anything the authorities can do to prevent this?[/font]

Since the building itself doesn't require planning permission, how would the authorities enforce this?

dusteeroads

RV2 wrote: »

Since the building itself doesn't require planning permission, how would the authorities enforce this?

They tend not to - lending institutions tend to withold funds for un-certified works

wexie

granitequarry wrote: »

...... is there anything the authorities can do to prevent this?[/font][/size][/color]

RV2 wrote: »

Since the building itself doesn't require planning permission, how would the authorities enforce this?

I'm sure an expert will come on to tell you exactly but I'd imagine there are any number of things they can do.

I think the more pertinent question is how would they ever find out if there are no complaints from the neighbours.

Considering the seemingly complete lack of data sharing between government agencies I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the system allowed having a PRTB registered lease, taxes all properly taken care of on a building that officially doesn't exist.

EDIT: And I mean 'allowed' in the sense of that it wouldn't be redflagged.

smelly sock

wexie wrote: »

building and living in aren't the same though.

I think under some circumstances you can build a shed/cabin up to 25m

You can't however then decide to use it as a house.

You'll be grand as long as you dont have nosey neighbours. I know of several couples living in parents garden in these types of dwellings.

As long as they are habitable i see no issue and if they are for immediate families ( grown kids) and help relieve some of the current housing difficulites they should be encouraged.

But no, we have banned bedsits which were perfectly good for singletons. The rules and regs which govern these cabins will also be tightened even more unless someones pockets are greased.

My parents in the late 70s and early 80s lived in a caravan in a relatives garden until they could afford to biluild a house. What was so wrong with that.

Gumbo

RV2 wrote: »

Since the building itself doesn't require planning permission, how would the authorities enforce this?

Planning Enforcement Section by way of complaint.
Possibly the Environmental Health department during routine inspection. They refer all stand alone sheds/units to Planning Enforcement and Building Control in Dublin nowadays.

wexie

smelly sock wrote: »

My parents in the late 70s and early 80s lived in a caravan in a relatives garden until they could afford to biluild a house. What was so wrong with that.

That's a tricky one I think.

In theory there's nothing wrong with it of course. But....we also don't want to encourage a situation where people have a 'bunkhouse' out the back where they have 20 odd people living/sleeping and milking them all for rent.

Laws and enforcement like this is (imho) generally to tackle the excesses rather than just the sensible use.

smelly sock

wexie wrote: »

That's a tricky one I think.

In theory there's nothing wrong with it of course. But....we also don't want to encourage a situation where people have a 'bunkhouse' out the back where they have 20 odd people living/sleeping and milking them all for rent.

Laws and enforcement like this is (imho) generally to tackle the excesses rather than just the sensible use.

Totally agree. But thats where the legislation and enforecment comes in.

Immediate family as i said and possibly a stipulation where a tenant must be saving for a desposit for a house. It really isnt that difficult if the will is there.

dusteeroads

smelly sock wrote: »

It really isnt that difficult if the will is there.

it operates quite well as a "blind eye" sort of thing
no need to regulate this unless it gets out of hand imo

wexie

dusteeroads wrote: »

no need to regulate this unless it gets out of hand imo

I think the problem is though, that with the market what it is at the moment it's almost certain to get out of hand unless it's enforced.

Given the quotes in the OP there certainly are companies actively marketing this kinda thing.

Lumen

dusteeroads wrote: »

it operates quite well as a "blind eye" sort of thing.
no need to regulate this unless it gets out of hand imo

The question is: can enforcement action be taken after seven years is up, or will the horse have bolted?

I'd expect than a non-compliant structure (e.g. shed with excessive floor area or height) cannot be touched after that period but only if the use is compliant (maybe kceire or whoever can clarify).

Lumen

Oh and you know what will cause a wave of enforcement actions?

Deaths by fire.

smelly sock

Lumen wrote: »

Oh and you know what will cause a wave of enforcement actions?

Deaths by fire.

Care to expand?

Lumen

smelly sock wrote: »

Care to expand?

When a family living in one of these sheds die in a fire, people will start asking questions about why local authorities turned a blind eye.

If that's what they are doing.

Metric Tensor

There are two separate sets of legislation here that people are mixing up:

1. Planning Regulations
2. Building Regulations

Even if you dodge/obfuscate/ignore or change the planning laws these glorified garden sheds do not comply with appropriate building regulations with regards to fire safety, emergency access and egress, sanitary services, ventilation, energy efficiency, etc. etc.

So even if planning laws are changed "back garden dwellings" would still have to be built to an appropriate standard and quality and the cost will be the same as that of building a small house anywhere else - which is a LOT more than the cost of buying an unsafe tatted up garden shed from the cheapest manufacturer.

BTW: Planning is frequently granted for Granny Flats connected to existing dwellings for exactly the type of family scenario discussed above. These can be and are build in a complaint manner and represent reasonably good planning and development sense as they can be converted back into part of the main dwelling in due course. Also by forcing a connecting door it makes the owner less likely to screw some unknown tennant out of ridiculous amounts of rent.

RV2

Call for planning laws to be changed to allow log cabins in gardens to tackle housing crisis
Irish Independent  July 16 2018
[font=Georgia, serif]DUBLIN City Council is to consider planning regulations to allow log cabins to be built in the gardens of home.[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]People Before Profit councillor John Lyons is to bring a motion before September's meeting of the planning and property development strategic policy committee (SPC) of the council to discuss amending planning laws to allow cabins to be built as a way of tackling the housing crisis.
At the moment any structure above 25sq m needs planning permission and the council can order a cabin to be removed if it is built without proper permission. 
The housing crisis has forced people into building log cabins as a means of saving for a home of their own he said, and he wants planning laws to be reviewed to reflect this practise. 
[ . . . ]
Issues such as how long the cabins could be in place for and planning considerations such as access and fire safety all need to be teased out also he added.
Restrictions such as how long the cabin could be in place for should also form part of the discussion Mr Lyons said, adding that five years would be a "fair time frame".[/font]

sydthebeat

Planning laws aren't going to be changed for these mobile homes.....

smelly sock

Lumen wrote: »

When a family living in one of these sheds die in a fire, people will start asking questions about why local authorities turned a blind eye.

If that's what they are doing.

Landlord are we?

Lumen

smelly sock wrote: »

Landlord are we?

No. It is possible to hold an opinion without a vested interest.

Poor Uncle Tom

I can see the planning legislation changing to allow for accommodation like this..

https://www.ethicaltrade.org/blog/caravan-accommodation-temporary-workers-new-guidance

and maybe even the re-invention of the bedsit, but, the legislation is supposed to be there for orderly, planned and development.

All this is different to the (building) regulations for a family dwelling. There is already minimum regulations in place for a family dwelling, these are there for the safety of the users and shouldn't be compromised IMO.

Maybe this is the ideal opportunity to completely overhaul the planning system in this country.

the_syco

Metric Tensor wrote: »

Replace "cabin" with "shed" and it's slightly more accurate but still doesn't list all the provisos and conditions that apply to such an undertaking.

Metric Tensor wrote: »

Any "journalist" or "news source" that prints such nonsense has clearly done no research

Replace "journalist" with "click-bait-maker" and it's slightly more accurate :pac:

RV2 wrote: »

Since the building itself doesn't require planning permission, how would the authorities enforce this?

I think if a neighbour complains, you'll be asked to remove it.

smelly sock wrote: »

But no, we have banned bedsits which were perfectly good for singletons. The rules and regs which govern these cabins will also be tightened even more unless someones pockets are greased.

No. The regs should have been changed, rather than gotten rid of, though. But due to the "pre-1963" rule, this wasn't going to happen, as the pre-1963 units seemed to be exempt from any planning laws.

smelly sock wrote: »

My parents in the late 70s and early 80s lived in a caravan in a relatives garden until they could afford to biluild a house. What was so wrong with that.

An ethnic minority has ensured that that is no longer allowed by most CC's. If one caravan was allowed, you'd be sued for discriminating against the 20 caravans in the back garden of someone renting the house.

Metric Tensor wrote: »

Also by forcing a connecting door it makes the owner less likely to screw some unknown tennant out of ridiculous amounts of rent.

And by having the door there, the tenant is not a tenant, but a licensee, and be evicted for no reason at little notice, with no comeback via the RTB.

RV2 wrote: »

DUBLIN City Council is to consider planning regulations to allow log cabins to be built in the gardens of home.
People Before Profit councillor John Lyons is to bring a motion before September's meeting of the planning and property development strategic policy committee (SPC) of the council to discuss amending planning laws to allow cabins to be built as a way of tackling the housing crisis.

I read that as "People Before Profit councillor John Lyons wants to legalise the sheds some poor bastards are living in".

Also, if it's legalised, most of said places will become AirBnB sheds cabins.

Jimmy.

After seven years you could build another one onto existing one. Follow the seven year rule.

the_syco

smelly sock wrote: »

Landlord are we?

Without planning permission, there is no minimum standards. And people will rent anything, if there's nothing else in their price range near their job.

Metric Tensor

the_syco wrote: »

And by having the door there, the tenant is not a tenant, but a licensee, and be evicted for no reason at little notice, with no comeback via the RTB.

Yes. The same would be true if you got permission to add an extra bedroom to your house. You can say it's for family but the law will allow you to use it for a rent a room scheme.

I don't think that scheme should be abandoned but other people's views may be different.

At any rate I wasn't advocating granny flats for renting to non-connected individuals but listing them as a better option for accommodating an extended family in one dwelling without resorting to living in an unsafe, poor quality shed in the garden.


tldr: One big dwelling for the extended family rather than one proper dwelling and a shanty town out the back.

Lumen

Jimmy. wrote: »

After seven years you could build another one onto existing one. Follow the seven year rule.

Doesn't work like that.

Poor Uncle Tom

the_syco wrote: »

Without planning permission, there is no minimum standards. And people will rent anything, if there's nothing else in their price range near their job.

55 years of planning legislation has failed miserably at providing orderly Planned development in every single local authority area. I believe there are more examples of poor planning than examples of planning and development that enhance an area.

Gumbo

Lumen wrote: »

The question is: can enforcement action be taken after seven years is up, or will the horse have bolted?

I'd expect than a non-compliant structure (e.g. shed with excessive floor area or height) cannot be touched after that period but only if the use is compliant (maybe kceire or whoever can clarify).

Enforcement action on the use can be taken at any time. The structure may be completely planning compliant but the use will be what's enforced.

Gumbo

Jimmy. wrote: »

After seven years you could build another one onto existing one. Follow the seven year rule.

Nope, not even remotely close. Pub Talk is no substitute to actual law.

Gumbo

smelly sock wrote: »

Landlord are we?

How is that even remotely related....or even relevant?

Jimmy.

kceire wrote: »

Nope, not even remotely close. Pub Talk is no substitute to actual law.

I don’t do pub talk. Perharps show some legislation.

Gumbo

Jimmy. wrote: »

I don’t do pub talk. Perharps show some legislation.

It was nothing more that pub talk in the post I quoted.

Lumen

Jimmy. wrote: »

I don’t do pub talk. Perharps show some legislation.

These are useful places to start


https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Legislation/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad%2C32879%2Cen.pdf

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,31564,en.pdf

dathi

Lumen wrote: »

When a family living in one of these sheds die in a fire, people will start asking questions about why local authorities turned a blind eye.

If that's what they are doing.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/no-prosecutions-over-carrickmines-fire-that-claimed-lives-of-10-people-dpp-36915496.html

people already have died

Gumbo

dathi wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/no-prosecutions-over-carrickmines-fire-that-claimed-lives-of-10-people-dpp-36915496.html

people already have died

Anybody know the how that fire started?
Not sure if it’s piblic knowledge or not?

Jimmy.

kceire wrote: »

It was nothing more that pub talk in the post I quoted.

That’s your opinion.

Gumbo

Jimmy. wrote: »

That’s your opinion.

Your post was based on incorrect opinion though.

Hurrache

Lumen wrote: »

When a family living in one of these sheds die in a fire, people will start asking questions about why local authorities turned a blind eye.

If that's what they are doing.

You got an alibi for tonight Lumen! No life lost, looks like a man cave/play room
https://twitter.com/DubFireBrigade/status/1042159922450976768?s=19

BryanF

smelly sock wrote: »

You'll be grand as long as you dont have nosey neighbours.

We obey the law in this forum. Please read the forum charter before posting again

Jimmy. wrote: »

After seven years you could build another one onto existing one. Follow the seven year rule.

Jimmy, with the greatest respect, this is misleading rubbish. If you doubt the regular posters here, perhaps you should post legislation proving your statement

wersal gummage

Was over in a friend's a few months ago, semi detached house, Dublin suburb, housing estate.....

The next door neighbour had installed a 2 storey style shed, the top of it reaches up to approximately the start of the roof level of the house (eg the gutters). I'd say it takes up about 80% of the garden. Absolutely horrendous thing, a proper eye sore. Friends are horrified but afraid to complain as neighbours kid, partner and their kids have moved in, housing crisis etc.... I could be wrong but I think my friends will have trouble if they ever want to sell their house with this thing towering over their garden...

Can complaints be anonymous or does the local council require a named person to lodge one?

Eric Cartman

kceire wrote: »

Anybody know the how that fire started?
Not sure if it’s piblic knowledge or not?

Illegal electricity connection was last I heard, very likely.


This craic of putting somebody in a shed in the back garden seems harmless but it has to be capped, doin it in a garden on a one off house has no issue but if multiple people in estates start doing it you cause traffic problems, parking problems, electrical incommer overloads , sewerage problems , theres issues with evacuations if necissary.

The only good reason to allow this is to house a family member saving for a deposit , the bad reasons are all that above, substandard rental accomodation for desperate people etc.. in summary its a good thing its illegal

the_syco

wersal gummage wrote: »

Can complaints be anonymous or does the local council require a named person to lodge one?

Do so via an "out of town" solicitor.

wersal gummage

wersal gummage wrote: »

Can complaints be anonymous or does the local council require a named person to lodge one?

They'll require a name and postal address but this is not disclosed to any third parties.

Calahonda52

Yakov P. Golyadkin wrote: »

They'll require a name and postal address but this is not disclosed to any third parties.

That is the theory, in practice, there is ample evidence of them being sent to the offender: usual excuse is: oh, new staff member...
However, the complainant does not, IIRC, need to live in the area

Gumbo

the_syco wrote: »

Do so via an "out of town" solicitor.

Has to be in writing, by email, post or even fax.
Can’t be a c/o letter.

If you get a solicitor to report on your behalf, they either have to put their names to the complaint or their clients ie you.

Gumbo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Illegal electricity connection was last I heard, very likely.


This craic of putting somebody in a shed in the back garden seems harmless but it has to be capped, doin it in a garden on a one off house has no issue but if multiple people in estates start doing it you cause traffic problems, parking problems, electrical incommer overloads , sewerage problems , theres issues with evacuations if necissary.

The only good reason to allow this is to house a family member saving for a deposit , the bad reasons are all that above, substandard rental accomodation for desperate people etc.. in summary its a good thing its illegal

I was told differently by the authorities.
I was told they were burning copper wires to remove the sleeves and doing this within the caravan. This is the reason why nobody had lodged any claims to the state or anything similar because of the illegal activity been carried out whil the tragedy occurred.

Gumbo

Calahonda52 wrote: »

That is the theory, in practice, there is ample evidence of them being sent to the offender: usual excuse is: oh, new staff member...
However, the complainant does not, IIRC, need to live in the area

Complainant can live in Donegal and complain about some thing in cork!

Eric Cartman

kceire wrote: »

I was told differently by the authorities.
I was told they were burning copper either to remove the sleeves and doing this within the caravan. This is the reason why nobody had lodged any claims to the state or anything similar because of the illegal activity been carried out whil the trade by occurred.

Also very possible , either way i think we all know it was an incident that wouldnt have happened if the residents themselves were behaving in an above board legal manor