Dublin City Council set to allow families build log cabins in back gardens

Lumen

Dublin City Council set to allow families build log cabins in back gardens
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/dublin-city-council-set-to-allow-families-build-log-cabins-in-back-gardens-888117.html

How's this going to work then?

What about building regs?

Gumbo

Lumen wrote: »

Dublin City Council set to allow families build log cabins in back gardens
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/dublin-city-council-set-to-allow-families-build-log-cabins-in-back-gardens-888117.html

How's this going to work then?

What about building regs?

This is going to be interesting.
I don't think it will get passed to be honest, as there will have to be some sort of Planning Legislation drafted to allow it. Max area, distance to boundary, heights etc

Then Building Regulations, fire safety, drainage etc

sydthebeat

somethings fishy with that article....

whats he looking to pass a motion on, if the end result still has to comply with planning guidelines?
is this the same motion he was looking to pass in september in which he was looking to change planning legislation?

it will be interesting to see how this is worded.... if its something as generic as "planning authority shall be favourably disposed to such applications once all planning guidelines are met" ... then its just populist nonsense.

if hes looking to pass a motion to circumvent building regulation legislation then i think he'll have the door firmly shut.

Lumen

Oh, there's a webcast of the meeting at 3.30pm

https://dublincity.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/386170

(fetches popcorn)

Lumen

He's on now.

It seems that the proposal is to amend 16.10.14 of the development plan to allow freestanding structures to be treated as ancillary family accommodation (i.e. detached granny flats).

How to make friends and influence people: invoke neoliberal bogeymen then call your fellow councillors lazy.

Lumen

Oh, apparently freestanding structures are already considered on merit if an attached rear/side extension is not possible.

Lumen

Someone whose name I didn't catch pointed out that he'd texted a constituent who told him that his log cabin cost 45k.

Nobody has pointed out that since the justification for this motion is to give the occupants a chance to save up a deposit, that 45k could just be gifted to the kids so that that can finance a permanent structure rather than being spent on a glorified shed.

lawred2

and will these cabins be available for rent at all?

at 2.5k a month?

Lumen

lawred2 wrote: »

and will these cabins be available for rent at all?

at 2.5k a month?

That unintended consequence has been mentioned by pretty much everyone speaking.

Lumen

Outcome: agreed to put the motion to the full council in Feb and get a report from the manager in the meantime.

ted1

Have they reversed the ban on bed sits ?

Gileadi

All the talk is of relaxing planning restrictions which is one thing.

Imo a council doesn’t have the power to relax the building regulations on this scale, which will be required on any inhabitable building. I’ve yet to see one of these log cabins that complies with all building regs.

Makes a mockery of the efforts that are being put into improve insulation and fire performance if we now accept modified portacabins.

sydthebeat

Gileadi wrote: »

All the talk is of relaxing planning restrictions which is one thing.

Imo a council doesn’t have the power to relax the building regulations on this scale, which will be required on any inhabitable building. I’ve yet to see one of these log cabins that complies with all building regs.

Makes a mockery of the efforts that are being put into improve insulation and fire performance if we now accept modified portacabins.

The question will be whether these detached buildings would be considered "extensions" from the point of view of building regs (no renewables, relaxed u values etc) or full new dwellings......

I've a feeling there would be a strong push to have them deemed the former....

Over to you kceire.....

Spanish Eyes

Good. About time something was done in relation to utilising space in back gardens.

We do not need to do anything like this TG, but our houses are terraced in a older part of Dublin. 100ft long gardens with gates onto a well maintained lane out the back. Would be perfect and preserve the privacy of all parties. Separate entrances/parking for all.

Anyway, by the time February comes around I am sure there will be objections on party political lines or something.

Log cabins and wooden houses are very common in Scandinavia and in the Alps. How on earth do they manage to keep warm!

riemann

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Good. About time something was done in relation to utilising space in back gardens.

We do not need to do anything like this TG, but our houses are terraced in a older part of Dublin. 100ft long gardens with gates onto a well maintained lane out the back. Would be perfect and preserve the privacy of all parties. Separate entrances/parking for all.

Anyway, by the time February comes around I am sure there will be objections on party political lines or something.

Log cabins and wooden houses are very common in Scandinavia and in the Alps. How on earth do they manage to keep warm!

Ever hear of a mews house? You should look them up. The only slight problem is you will need to get planning permission and comply with current building regulations.

Scandinavia may be colder than Ireland, it is also drier and more suited to timber as a building material.

Spanish Eyes

riemann wrote: »

Ever hear of a mews house? You should look them up. The only slight problem is you will need to get planning permission and comply with current building regulations.

Scandinavia may be colder than Ireland, it is also drier and more suited to timber as a building material.

Plenty have applied for mews buildings in the area but none have been approved ever. Not in keeping with the area or some such. Never understood it myself, but there we are.

Thanks for the information about the different climates in Scandinavia though, would never have known that :rolleyes:

Metric Tensor

riemann wrote: »

Scandinavia may be colder than Ireland, it is also drier and more suited to timber as a building material.

Spot on. The wind driven rain index in Ireland and Scotland are the highest in Europe as far as I'm aware.

Not to mention that what counts as a "log cabin" in Scandinavia is not the same as the glorified sheds that are called log cabins here.

Ignoring aesthetics and planning and development concerns any structural style can be made comply with the building regulations - but the cheapest ways of doing so are the currently used methods!

And the building regulations are there to protect us all from the likes of fire, structural collapse, dampness, illness due to polluted water and poor air quality. And to make buildings suitable for when each of us gets old, infirm, pregnant, hard of sight, etc., etc. Bypassing them in order to provide a quick, cheap fix is not something that makes sense.

lawred2

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Good. About time something was done in relation to utilising space in back gardens.

We do not need to do anything like this TG, but our houses are terraced in a older part of Dublin. 100ft long gardens with gates onto a well maintained lane out the back. Would be perfect and preserve the privacy of all parties. Separate entrances/parking for all.

Anyway, by the time February comes around I am sure there will be objections on party political lines or something.

Log cabins and wooden houses are very common in Scandinavia and in the Alps. How on earth do they manage to keep warm!

they sure are

but where you don't tend to find them is wedged into urban back yards in Stockholm

Brontosaurus

Old thread I know, but you can get a log house from 15k for a one bedroom, to 30k for a two to three bedroom. This is with insulation and steel roof, double glazed windows etc. Of course plumbing and electric etc would be extra, but not 10k extra. It is impossible to get a conventional construction to cost the same.

And no it isn't a glorified shed, they can last generations with maintenance every 5 or so years which is a case of repainting or varnishing.

Wooden homes have been used for centuries in Northern Europe, Russia, Scandinavia and North America.

Of course if you've a vested interest in preventing people from having affordable housing then you'd naturally be opposed to anything that is remotely unconventional by Irish standards.

Gumbo

Brontosaurus wrote: »

Old thread I know, but you can get a log house from 15k for a one bedroom, to 30k for a two to three bedroom. This is with insulation and steel roof, double glazed windows etc. Of course plumbing and electric etc would be extra, but not 10k extra. It is impossible to get a conventional construction to cost the same.

And no it isn't a glorified shed, they can last generations with maintenance every 5 or so years which is a case of repainting or varnishing.

Wooden homes have been used for centuries in Northern Europe, Russia, Scandinavia and North America.

Of course if you've a vested interest in preventing people from having affordable housing then you'd naturally be opposed to anything that is remotely unconventional by Irish standards.

Glorified shed if you don’t have planning for those bedrooms.

Graham

Brontosaurus wrote: »

Old thread I know, but you can get a log house from 15k for a one bedroom, to 30k for a two to three bedroom. This is with insulation and steel roof, double glazed windows etc. Of course plumbing and electric etc would be extra, but not 10k extra. It is impossible to get a conventional construction to cost the same.

And no it isn't a glorified shed, they can last generations with maintenance every 5 or so years which is a case of repainting or varnishing.

Wooden homes have been used for centuries in Northern Europe, Russia, Scandinavia and North America.

Just taking Sweden as an example, according to statistikdatabasen average construction costs for a dwelling in 2017 were between SEK1.8m and SEK2.2m that's around €180k - €220k.

If they were knocking out 'log cabins' for €30k a pop that's not what I'd expect to see.

Brontosaurus

Graham wrote: »

Just taking Sweden as an example, according to statistikdatabasen average construction costs for a dwelling in 2017 were between SEK1.8m and SEK2.2m that's around €180k - €220k.

If they were knocking out 'log cabins' for €30k a pop that's not what I'd expect to see.

Is that cost being converted into what it would cost to build the equivalent here? Are these two story 4 bedroom houses or what?

The reason I mentioned other countries is that people seem to think that a wooden house is inherently unsuitable for long term habitation.

The examples I'm referring to are for small, single story homes with open planning, a little larger than your typical 'tiny house'. I'm talking 6x5m for a one bedroom or 5x10m for a two bedroom. You get deminishing returns the larger you go it seems, but still works out cheaper than conventional construction and build time seems much shorter.

I just think there must be some other reason why the whole tiny-house/off-grid/low-impact living hasn't been a think in Ireland but has in much of the rest of the world. Why is it cheaper to live in a small log house in other countries like the US, Canada, Australia than in their equivalent of conventional homes?

Are the houses we build in Ireland the most affordable and efficient they can be?

Lumen

The fact that there are crap old houses is the reason we have improved building regulations, and those regs are one of the reasons why "log cabins" as commonly advocated for aren't legal.

So what is the argument? That we should relax building regs for all new dwellings so that these sheds may pass? Or just make exceptions? On what basis would the exceptions be made? What would stop every new build being of shed construction?

sydthebeat

Let the manufacturers of these "log cabins" provide specifications, and final certification, which comply with all building regulations and see what price they are then.

The fact they do not screams "beware" to me.

VeryTerry

Graham wrote: »

Just taking Sweden as an example, according to statistikdatabasen average construction costs for a dwelling in 2017 were between SEK1.8m and SEK2.2m that's around €180k - €220k.

If they were knocking out 'log cabins' for €30k a pop that's not what I'd expect to see.

Sweden doesn't have a housing crises though so most people are building apartments. They're building them like mad as well if the area I was living in is anything to go by. It's not really comparible.

Brontosaurus

Lumen wrote: »

The fact that there are crap old houses is the reason we have improved building regulations, and those regs are one of the reasons why "log cabins" as commonly advocated for aren't legal.

So what is the argument? That we should relax building regs for all new dwellings so that these sheds may pass? Or just make exceptions? On what basis would the exceptions be made? What would stop every new build being of shed construction?

If you are building a dwelling on your own land, and say not in someones back-garden or part of some development plan, I think you should be able to live in a hole in the ground if that's what you want.

I'm not asking for the wild west, but the fact we have a housing crisis yet are insistent on strict building regulations in all cases, going as far as to require wheelchair accesss and for the doors to be so wide etc. is ridiculous. So long as it is structurally sound and not a fire-hazard, and that you are not renting or selling it, a tiny log cabin should be allowed if that is what someone wants to live in.

I am not talking about glorified sheds in the first place ,whatever the hell that means. Actually look them up, and also look up the tiny house movement while you are at it.

Again, to reiterate, if I own the land, and it is not stacked on top of someone else's land, and so long as it does not pose a safety hazard and the neighbors are OK with it, it should be allowed.

But that is wishful thinking, we live in a nanny state, enabling a monopoly on the housing market, constantly at the whims of the county council even if you make PP and building regs.

RayCun

Brontosaurus wrote: »

and that you are not renting or selling it, a tiny log cabin should be allowed if that is what someone wants to live in.

If you are allowed live in it, why wouldn't you be allowed rent it or sell it?
Don't the exact same arguments apply?
Shouldn't someone be allowed buy or rent a hole in the ground, if that's what they want?
If you own it, shouldn't you be allowed rent it or sell it, if that's what you want?

BryanF

Brontosaurus wrote: »

1. building a dwelling on your own land, and say not in someones back-garden or part of some development plan, I think you should be able to live in a hole in the ground if that's what you want.

2. wild west,
3. housing crisis yet are insistent on strict building regulations in all cases, going as far as to require
4. wheelchair accesss and for the doors to be so wide etc.
5. is ridiculous.
6. So long as it is structurally sound and not a fire-hazard,
7. and that you are not renting or selling it, a
8. tiny log cabin should be allowed if that is what someone wants to live in.

9. I am not talking about glorified sheds in the first place ,whatever the hell that means.
10. Actually look them up,
11. and also look up the tiny house movement while you are at it.

12.Again, to reiterate, if I own the land, and it is not stacked on top of someone else's land, and so long as it does not pose a safety hazard and the neighbors are OK with it, it should be allowed.

13. But that is wishful thinking, we live in a nanny state, enabling a monopoly on the housing market, constantly at the whims of the county council even if you make PP and building regs.

1. Not in Ireland. Thankfully
2. Exactly
3. No excuse to ignore regulation
4. ‘the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex‘ : discrimination
5. This rant is
6. Exactly - comply with regulations in place
7. Is that today or when circumstances change? Very short sighted argument
8. go to the county where these shows are made. Small houses can be built in Ireland assuming they comply with planning & building regs
9. sheds may still need planning.
10. Read around the forum
11. We live in a democracy. We obey the law. The law sets out means of regulation compliance.

If you want to rant suggest you go to the ‘after hours’ forum

Brontosaurus

BryanF wrote: »

1. Not in Ireland. Thankfully
2. Exactly
3. No excuse to ignore regulation
4. ‘the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex‘ : discrimination
5. This rant is
6. Exactly - comply with regulations in place
7. Is that today or when circumstances change? Very short sighted argument
8. go to the county where these shows are made. Small houses can be built in Ireland assuming they comply with planning & building regs
9. sheds may still need planning.
10. Read around the forum
11. We live in a democracy. We obey the law. The law sets out means of regulation compliance.

If you want to rant suggest you go to the ‘after hours’ forum

This was not a rant, it was me sharing my opinion as you and others have done and continue to do. That is what democracy is about, open discourse.

You seem to missed the point entirely. I'm pointing out that the regulations are over the top in most cases. I'm not saying to ignore regulations, I am stating that the current regulations are counter productive to solving the housing shortage. You can still have safe homes without requiring nonsense that makes it hard to impossible for young families and people trying to move out from their parents' to have their own place without falling into the rent/debt trap.

Forcing me to build my house a certain way to accommodate hypothetical visitors, who don't have the right to be on my property without my permission, is ridiculous. It is not discrimination to not build my own home for the sake of some hypothetical stranger. Regardless, the whole idea of private property is arguably discriminatory, since you choose who is allowed in.

If I want to be short sighted and not build my house with the intention of selling or renting, that should be me right. I don't need others acting like they know best for me.

How I choose to live should not be of anyone else's concern so long as it does not affect them.

Tiny homes cannot pass ridiculous building regs. Homes have to be over 100 sqm, that sort of goes against the term "tiny". Current regs completely disincentives people from even attempting to do so, as do many users on these forums.

I am well aware we live in a socialist democracy with a healthy amount of corruption, nepotism, favoritism and favor sharing. Hence why I'm stating my displeasure with the current status quo. I'm sure to vote people who would deregulate, but they are virtually nonexistent in this country.

Lumen

Brontosaurus wrote: »

This was not a rant, it was me sharing my opinion as you and others have done and continue to do. That is what democracy is about, open discourse.

You seem to missed the point entirely. I'm pointing out that the regulations are over the top in most cases. I'm not saying to ignore regulations, I am stating that the current regulations are counter productive to solving the housing shortage. You can still have safe homes without requiring nonsense that makes it hard to impossible for young families and people trying to move out from their parents' to have their own place without falling into the rent/debt trap.

Forcing me to build my house a certain way to accommodate hypothetical visitors, who don't have the right to be on my property without my permission, is ridiculous. It is not discrimination to not build my own home for the sake of some hypothetical stranger. Regardless, the whole idea of private property is arguably discriminatory, since you choose who is allowed in.

If I want to be short sighted and not build my house with the intention of selling or renting, that should be me right. I don't need others acting like they know best for me.

How I choose to live should not be of anyone else's concern so long as it does not affect them.

Tiny homes cannot pass ridiculous building regs. Homes have to be over 100 sqm, that sort of goes against the term "tiny". Current regs completely disincentives people from even attempting to do so, as do many users on these forums.

I am well aware we live in a socialist democracy with a healthy amount of corruption, nepotism, favoritism and favor sharing. Hence why I'm stating my displeasure with the current status quo. I'm sure to vote people who would deregulate, but they are virtually nonexistent in this country.

Building Regulations are not your enemy. In a tight market, the price is set by ability to pay, not by cost of supply. Dublin property is expensive because there are more buyers than sellers, and so only the richest buyers can trade.

If you cut the building regs back to 2004 levels the land prices would rise to compensate and you'd end up with 2004 houses again. They were, in the main, crap and expensive.

Also, you're disregarding that the additional cost of building to current regs is more than offset by energy savings over the long term.

Gumbo

Brontosaurus wrote: »

This was not a rant, it was me sharing my opinion as you and others have done and continue to do. That is what democracy is about, open discourse.

You seem to missed the point entirely. I'm pointing out that the regulations are over the top in most cases. I'm not saying to ignore regulations, I am stating that the current regulations are counter productive to solving the housing shortage. You can still have safe homes without requiring nonsense that makes it hard to impossible for young families and people trying to move out from their parents' to have their own place without falling into the rent/debt trap.

Forcing me to build my house a certain way to accommodate hypothetical visitors, who don't have the right to be on my property without my permission, is ridiculous. It is not discrimination to not build my own home for the sake of some hypothetical stranger. Regardless, the whole idea of private property is arguably discriminatory, since you choose who is allowed in.

If I want to be short sighted and not build my house with the intention of selling or renting, that should be me right. I don't need others acting like they know best for me.

How I choose to live should not be of anyone else's concern so long as it does not affect them.

Tiny homes cannot pass ridiculous building regs. Homes have to be over 100 sqm, that sort of goes against the term "tiny". Current regs completely disincentives people from even attempting to do so, as do many users on these forums.

I am well aware we live in a socialist democracy with a healthy amount of corruption, nepotism, favoritism and favor sharing. Hence why I'm stating my displeasure with the current status quo. I'm sure to vote people who would deregulate, but they are virtually nonexistent in this country.

What hypothetical visitor are you ranting about?

BryanF

Mod note:

Brontosaurus, as per the forum charter (this is the construction and planning forum)

We obey the law of the land, including building regulations.

further rants should be posted in the ‘after hours’ forum

If you have a problem with this direction feel free to PM the mods

Please read the forum charter before posting again

Thanks

An_Toirpin

BryanF wrote: »

1. Not in Ireland. Thankfully
2. Exactly
3. No excuse to ignore regulation
4. ‘the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex‘ : discrimination

I dont know what the rules for wheelchair access are but I see many brand new houses being built no wheelchair access. I think the cutting edge of building regulations would be more in the area of Nzeb, fire and maximum heights of high rise.

I support good building regulations but just because they are the law doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be debated. All regulations add to cost and there is an argument against and for.

Gumbo

An_Toirpin wrote: »

I dont know what the rules for wheelchair access are but I see many brand new houses being built no wheelchair access. I think the cutting edge of building regulations would be more in the area of Nzeb, fire and maximum heights of high rise.

I support good building regulations but just because they are the law doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be debated. All regulations add to cost and there is an argument against and for.

Where are you seeing brand new houses being built without wheelchair access?

An_Toirpin

kceire wrote: »

Where are you seeing brand new houses being built without wheelchair access?

Scattered across Dublin. Surely all new houses without lifts are difficult for wheelchair users?

Lumen

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Scattered across Dublin. Surely all new houses without lifts are difficult for wheelchair users?

"3.3.1 Objective
The objective is to facilitate circulation of visitors within the entrance storey, or where there is no habitable room at this level, in the storey containing the main living room. "

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/FileDownLoad%2C24773%2Cen.pdf

sydthebeat

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Scattered across Dublin. Surely all new houses without lifts are difficult for wheelchair users?

as lumen has posted.... all the regs require is that someone with additional needs can visit your house, access a reception room and use a toilet.

thats not too much to ask for is it??
but some posters here think thats the height of communism......

An_Toirpin

sydthebeat wrote: »

as lumen has posted.... all the regs require is that someone with additional needs can visit your house, access a reception room and use a toilet.

thats not too much to ask for is it??
but some posters here think thats the height of communism......

I didnt say it is too much. But it proves that what I observed, that accessiblity is not mandatory in private housing, only nominal accessiblity.

Lumen wrote: »

Building Regulations are not your enemy. In a tight market, the price is set by ability to pay, not by cost of supply. Dublin property is expensive because there are more buyers than sellers, and so only the richest buyers can trade.

If you cut the building regs back to 2004 levels the land prices would rise to compensate and you'd end up with 2004 houses again. They were, in the main, crap and expensive.

Also, you're disregarding that the additional cost of building to current regs is more than offset by energy savings over the long term.

It is unpopular to say but I think there is some evidence that developers' profits are too low. That being said I rather improve them with reduced development levies than reducing standards.

Gumbo

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Scattered across Dublin. Surely all new houses without lifts are difficult for wheelchair users?

Give over, a lift a typical family dwelling!
Have you any idea of the cost, space requirements and maintenance requirements for a lift would be in every dwelling.

I think you do not understand the Building Regulations at all here.
Part M requires level approach to the dwelling, level threshold and entry to the dwelling, wider doors at ground floor, at least one habitable room at ground floor level (in theory this could be converted to a bedroom if required) and an accessible toilet at ground floor level.

This to me is a very good approach to mainstream domestic construction for the typical dwelling.

If the development is a dedicated build for a person with disabilities, then those disabilities can be used to tweeked the design to make the house suit that particular person.

Gumbo

An_Toirpin wrote: »

I didnt say it is too much. But it proves that what I observed, that accessiblity is not mandatory in private housing, only nominal accessiblity.

Our houses are more accessible than they have been ever before. All new estates have level pathways, level entries to dwellings, tactile paving etc etc

sydthebeat

An_Toirpin wrote: »

I didnt say it is too much. But it proves that what I observed, that accessiblity is not mandatory in private housing, only nominal accessiblity.

I wasnt referring to you.

And you phrase that in a weird way.

Nominal accessibility is mandatory.

Not seeing what's not required is not proof of anything, other than your lack of understanding of what's required.

Metric Tensor

Also these changes are regularly "debated" as you put it. At least a year in advance if any proposed change the change is published and everyone is invited to comment.

You're looking for a conspiracy where there is none. What you're advocating is the equivalent of saying you don't want seatbelts in your new car because you don't want to pay for them and it should be up to you to decide on whether you fancy doing things the right way or the half arsed way.

Metric Tensor

Also these changes are regularly "debated" as you put it. At least a year in advance if any proposed change the change is published and everyone is invited to comment.

You're looking for a conspiracy where there is none. What you're advocating is the equivalent of saying you don't want seatbelts in your new car because you don't want to pay for them and it should be up to you to decide on whether you fancy doing things the right way or the half arsed way.

An_Toirpin

Metric Tensor wrote: »

Also these changes are regularly "debated" as you put it. At least a year in advance if any proposed change the change is published and everyone is invited to comment.

You're looking for a conspiracy where there is none. What you're advocating is the equivalent of saying you don't want seatbelts in your new car because you don't want to pay for them and it should be up to you to decide on whether you fancy doing things the right way or the half arsed way.

Don't know why you talk about conspiracy. I merely pointing out, something being the law is a poor reason to accept it without question as was pointed out. Plenty of planning regulations are revised and reversed over time, confirming my point.

Gumbo

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Don't know why you talk about conspiracy. I merely pointing out, something being the law is a poor reason to accept it without question as was pointed out. Plenty of planning regulations are revised and reversed over time, confirming my point.

Building regulations generally never get revised backwards. They get stricter as times move on and rightly so.

Brontosaurus

kceire wrote: »

Building regulations generally never get revised backwards. They get stricter as times move on and rightly so.

So you think ever stricter regulations is a good thing, and you don't see an issue with them not being reversible? That's lunacy. You'll think that until there is a new regulation brought in that you find silly or unjust, by which point there will be nothing you can do.

I'm still waiting for regulation making it easier for the blind to access your homes. Also for those with autism, there should be nothing that could upset them like highly contrasting colours and other potential visual triggers. Also, in case a muslim or jew wants to enter your home please don't have any pork or alcohol. Also no beef in case a hindu demands a visit.

If no one here can see the absurdity of requiring that your home is accessible to wheelchairs, implying that someone has a right to access your private property, then all hope is lost.

Gumbo

Brontosaurus wrote: »

So you think ever stricter regulations is a good thing, and you don't see an issue with them not being reversible? That's lunacy. You'll think that until there is a new regulation brought in that you find silly or unjust, by which point there will be nothing you can do.

I'm still waiting for regulation making it easier for the blind to access your homes. Also for those with autism, there should be nothing that could upset them like highly contrasting colours and other potential visual triggers. Also, in case a muslim or jew wants to enter your home please don't have any pork or alcohol. Also no beef in case a hindu demands a visit.

If no one here can see the absurdity of requiring that your home is accessible to wheelchairs, implying that someone has a right to access your private property, then all hope is lost.

Is your rant over?

Wider doors provide access to people using crutches, older people using walking sticks like yourself someday (probably soon by the sounds of it). Pregnant women are temporarily disable and as such require wider spaces.

Access is not only about wheelchairs and if you had your blinkers off for a second you’d understand that.

You don’t like it, build in another county. That’s short end of the stick.

By the way, did any of those manufacturers come back to you on how their log cabins meet Building Regulations, particularly fire safety? https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109063943&postcount=5

sydthebeat

Brontosaurus is well named for his dinosaur thinking.


Good forbid some day that a Muslim, jew, Hindu, autistic or disabled person visited his house..... They'd be met with both ends of a shot gun barrel and a terse "get yerself off Ma lawn".....

Brontosaurus

kceire wrote: »

Is your rant over?

Wider doors provide access to people using crutches, older people using walking sticks like yourself someday (probably soon by the sounds of it). Pregnant women are temporarily disable and as such require wider spaces.

Access is not only about wheelchairs and if you had your blinkers off for a second you’d understand that.

You don’t like it, build in another county. That’s short end of the stick.

By the way, did any of those manufacturers come back to you on how their log cabins meet Building Regulations, particularly fire safety? https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109063943&postcount=5

Again you missed the point. The point is on my own private property, no one has right of access (unless they are garda or emergency services etc.). It is rediculous to assume the nanny state knows best and can impose such restrictions on someone's property. You are saying that someone has the right to access your home. I wasn't the one who mentioned wheelchairs in the first place.

As for the old and those in crutches, again, if I build a home for ME, it is under my discretion whether or not to have wide doorways. If it makes life difficult for me in the future, tough, that is my choice to make. Pregnant women aren't "disabled" in nearly the same way.

Again, the point is that it imposes on individual sovereignty and the principles or private property.

But this will just devolve further into trying to explain the pitfalls of over-regulation.

The log cabin is a sperate thread, petty of you to mention it. They did get back, as they said they can build to meet building regulations. The price they quoted me is for the barebones. It works out to about 450 per sqm for the house itself. The specific company has a few homes built. The hassle is getting PP.

Brontosaurus

sydthebeat wrote: »

Brontosaurus is well named for his dinosaur thinking.


Good forbid some day that a Muslim, jew, Hindu, autistic or disabled person visited his house..... They'd be met with both ends of a shot gun barrel and a terse "get yerself off Ma lawn".....

The point is that no one has the right to demand entry onto or into private property. Regulating that you must build in such away as to allow such access into a private dwelling goes against the notion of private property. The only reason this discussion has gotten this far is due to the average Irishman's inability to think and act as an individual. It's a very logical and straightforward position to have, I don't see what is so hard to understand about it. I've yet to see a reasonable counterargument other than "but the regulations say so!".

I'm hardly a dinosaur BTW, I'm probably the youngest person in this thread.

Lumen

The reasonable counterargument is that the regulations have improved the quality of the housing stock and will improve housing choice and quantity of life for old and otherwise disabled people. Do you not understand this intent, or just consider it subservient to your natural right to do whatever the hell you like?

Why should society have to bail you out into a nursing home when you're too arthritic to clamber in and out of your rotting, damp, 40 year old shed?