Dublin City Council

CPTM

Does anyone know if I have a planning situation which I've been advised to take up with the dublin city council, can I just walk up to the office on wood quay and speak to someone in there? Or do I need to make an appointment?

Basically I bought a house 5 years ago which had works done to it over 20 years ago. The 7 year rule applies but unfortunately I was never told when buying it that it wasn't compliant from a fire hazard perspective. So now I go to sell, and I'm told it's non compliant and works will need to be carried out to make it compliant or no bank will allow a mortgage to sit against it, eve though I had no issues 5 years ago getting a mortgage for it. I've been told by endless surveyors and fire consultants that I need to speak to the dcc about it.

Calahonda52

IMO, its not really a planning issue: its a non-compliance with the building regs, namely Part B
You seem to know what remedial work needs doing so get it done and signed off on.
I really don't know what DCC will add to the above.
I had a fire safety issue lately and it was the Fire officer, attached to the Fire Dept whom I dealt with, not the CoCo.
he told me I need

1. to get a report done of what needs doing
2. get it done
3. get it signed off as being compliantly done
4. then get back to him.

CPTM

Calahonda52 wrote: »

IMO, its not really a planning issue: its a non-compliance with the building regs, namely Part B
You seem to know what remedial work needs doing so get it done and signed off on.
I really don't know what DCC will add to the above.
I had a fire safety issue lately and it was the Fire officer, attached to the Fire Dept whom I dealt with, not the CoCo.
he told me I need

1. to get a report done of what needs doing
2. get it done
3. get it signed off as being compliantly done
4. then get back to him.

I got a fire consultant out and he said that a few windows in the bedrooms at the back of the house would be sufficient. However the back of the house faces another row of cottages - the owners of which don't want windows or doors going into our houses. He did mention that fire safety supersedes planning but they are very aggressive and so I was hoping to meet with the planning people to see is it even possible to put windows in. If not, then I'll need to go to building control people to get sign off on some compensatory measures which could be done inside the house. That would cost me over 20k and would probably devalue the property even more.

Can I just walk in to dublin city council and talk to these people (building control and planning)?

Thanks,
Conor

Gumbo

CPTM wrote: »

I got a fire consultant out and he said that a few windows in the bedrooms at the back of the house would be sufficient. However the back of the house faces another row of cottages - the owners of which don't want windows or doors going into our houses. He did mention that fire safety supersedes planning but they are very aggressive and so I was hoping to meet with the planning people to see is it even possible to put windows in. If not, then I'll need to go to building control people to get sign off on some compensatory measures which could be done inside the house. That would cost me over 20k and would probably devalue the property even more.

Can I just walk in to dublin city council and talk to these people (building control and planning)?

Thanks,
Conor

Yes you can walk in but no guarantee you’ll get to speak to anyone as it can be appointment only for the planners and they will want drawings before discussing with you.

Building control is more informal but you may get nobody as they are on site. But I will tell you what I’d tell you if you came to building control. You know the issues so you either ignore them and risk a non sale or you fix them.

This is another problem I have with the 7 year rule pub talk that goes around. It’s useless and means nothing as you’ve experienced now during your sales process.

Calahonda52

CPTM wrote: »

I got a fire consultant out and he said that a few windows in the bedrooms at the back of the house would be sufficient. However the back of the house faces another row of cottages - the owners of which don't want windows or doors going into our houses. He did mention that fire safety supersedes planning but they are very aggressive and so I was hoping to meet with the planning people to see is it even possible to put windows in. If not, then I'll need to go to building control people to get sign off on some compensatory measures which could be done inside the house. That would cost me over 20k and would probably devalue the property even more.

Can I just walk in to dublin city council and talk to these people (building control and planning)?

Thanks,
Conor

Consider solid, non glazed openings that are designated as fire exits: I don't see how the neighbours can object to that

CPTM

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Consider solid, non glazed openings that are designated as fire exits: I don't see how the neighbours can object to that

Apparently they don't like to see the historical bricks disturbed.. It's possibly worth a try but they've been very aggressive in the past. Even if planning is granted I can see them parking their car right up against the back of my boundary wall to stop any works happening.

CPTM

kceire wrote: »

Yes you can walk in but no guarantee you’ll get to speak to anyone as it can be appointment only for the planners and they will want drawings before discussing with you.

Building control is more informal but you may get nobody as they are on site. But I will tell you what I’d tell you if you came to building control. You know the issues so you either ignore them and risk a non sale or you fix them.

This is another problem I have with the 7 year rule pub talk that goes around. It’s useless and means nothing as you’ve experienced now during your sales process.

Just to be clear, the recommendations they gave me are not possible (It's not that I'm being awkward). I've had two fire consultants and 3 surveyors in. So far 3 architects have told me they're not interested.

These were the recommendations:

1) An exit is required at the back - this is not possible because of the neighbour's objections

2) A sprinkler system is needed throughout the house as a compensatory measure - this is not possible because there is no room for a tank in the attic.

3) A complete re work of the house is required - This would cost 50-60k and would require me to leave the house for up to 4 months while they do the work. I don't have that money, and we have no where to go.

No one told me about this issue when I bought it - I was young and inexperienced when I bought the house. I figured if bank of Ireland's "building pathologist" would sign off on it, it must be fine.

Now I'm married with a kid on the way and need to figure out how to get a family house, or risk raising a family in a 1.5 bed 40 sq m fire hazard shoe box. Not the best position I've ever found myself in.

Calahonda52

Are they recommendations or compulsory?
Are all three required?

Can neighbours object to a fire exit?
Ho do you know they will object?
Have you engaged with them and explained it is only a fire exit?

antiskeptic

CPTM wrote: »

Does anyone know if I have a planning situation which I've been advised to take up with the dublin city council, can I just walk up to the office on wood quay and speak to someone in there? Or do I need to make an appointment?

Basically I bought a house 5 years ago which had works done to it over 20 years ago. The 7 year rule applies but unfortunately I was never told when buying it that it wasn't compliant from a fire hazard perspective. So now I go to sell, and I'm told it's non compliant and works will need to be carried out to make it compliant or no bank will allow a mortgage to sit against it, eve though I had no issues 5 years ago getting a mortgage for it. I've been told by endless surveyors and fire consultants that I need to speak to the dcc about it.

Is it non compliant with the regs 20 years ago? An old build doesn't have to comply with more modern regs.

What is the specific problem? If, for example a bedroom has no window (having a skylight instead) and that doesn't conform to regs 20 years ago, would it be cheaper to sell the house with that room designated as something else not requiring a window? You see this all the time with attic conversions into bedrooms which don't conform to habitable room standards. The house including converted attic is used as a 4 bed say, but advertised as a three bed. The purchaser knows exactly what they are getting and can make their own choices.

The bank wouldn't issue a mortgage if it were sold as a four bed (since it isn't) but will as a three bed.

CPTM

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Are they recommendations or compulsory?
Are all three required?

Can neighbours object to a fire exit?
Ho do you know they will object?
Have you engaged with them and explained it is only a fire exit?

I wanted to add windows 5 years ago when I moved in (because I couldn't open the skylights when it was raining) and they all came around to my house quite angrily. Other people on the street have tried and failed unfortunately. I suppose the difference is that their case wasn't for fire reasons.

The fire consultants said any of the 3 would pass, subject to DCC building control sign off. But they were pretty confident that any of the 3 should work.

CPTM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is it non compliant with the regs 20 years ago? An old build doesn't have to comply with more modern regs.

What is the specific problem? If, for example a bedroom has no window (having a skylight instead) and that doesn't conform to regs 20 years ago, would it be cheaper to sell the house with that room designated as something else not requiring a window? You see this all the time with attic conversions into bedrooms which don't conform to habitable room standards. The house including converted attic is used as a 4 bed say, but advertised as a three bed. The purchaser knows exactly what they are getting and can make their own choices.

The bank wouldn't issue a mortgage if it were sold as a four bed (since it isn't) but will as a three bed.

Unfortunately, this is a tiny 2 bed, both bedrooms are at the back of the house, and the kitchen is at the front. The two bedrooms fill the entire back yard of the property with no escape aside from skylights on the flat roof. It's so small that it's only 5 big steps from the back of the house to the front though, so it never feels unsafe. I'm not trying to say that it IS safe, I'm just saying that it never felt unsafe to me.

So the thing is that I would have to sell it as having no bedrooms. But thanks for the idea.

We tried the timeline thing, but unfortunately it is non-compliant according to regs a long time ago. I'm not sure when exactly, but the two surveyors definitely said the fact the work was done in 1998 is not long enough ago.

Calahonda52

CPTM wrote: »

I wanted to add windows 5 years ago when I moved in (because I couldn't open the skylights when it was raining) and they all came around to my house quite angrily. Other people on the street have tried and failed unfortunately. I suppose the difference is that their case wasn't for fire reasons.

The fire consultants said any of the 3 would pass, subject to DCC building control sign off. But they were pretty confident that any of the 3 should work.

So mob rule is what goes in you street.

I will repeat again what I said earlier: consider solid opes for fire exits only

CPTM

Calahonda52 wrote: »

So mob rule is what goes in you street.

I will repeat again what I said earlier: consider solid opes for fire exits only

When you say solid opes, would you have a link to an example? Are they only openable during an emergency is it? Because the neighbour's harp on about the historical bricks on the back wall but really I think it's privacy is their issue, so it might be a runner..

Thanks for your responses by the way.

antiskeptic

CPTM wrote: »

Unfortunately, this is a tiny 2 bed, both bedrooms are at the back of the house, and the kitchen is at the front. The two bedrooms fill the entire back yard of the property with no escape aside from skylights on the flat roof. It's so small that it's only 5 big steps from the back of the house to the front though, so it never feels unsafe. I'm not trying to say that it IS safe, I'm just saying that it never felt unsafe to me.

5 steps into a fire in front of you is a long way.

So the thing is that I would have to sell it as having no bedrooms. But thanks for the idea.

A 0 bedroomed house would certainly be a first on MyHome. God knows how you were allowed by the mortgage co to buy that.

We tried the timeline thing, but unfortunately it is non-compliant according to regs a long time ago. I'm not sure when exactly, but the two surveyors definitely said the fact the work was done in 1998 is not long enough ago.

What's outside the rear wall? A lane or someone elses property. You mentioned them parking cars against the wall which indicates a lane. I wouldn't worry about them parking cars to prevent work - the work could all be done from inside the house, near enough.

antiskeptic

CPTM wrote: »

When you say solid opes, would you have a link to an example? Are they only openable during an emergency is it? Because the neighbour's harp on about the historical bricks on the back wall but really I think it's privacy is their issue, so it might be a runner..

Thanks for your responses by the way.

You could cut out an ope with a consaw. Nice and square and neat. Then make brick slips out of the old bricks (basically slicing the face off the brick, leaving you with a 10mm thick brick. You stick this onto your solid door with adhesive, grout it up and bar for a thin cut line, it would look the same as now.

CPTM

antiskeptic wrote: »

5 steps into a fire in front of you is a long way.



A 0 bedroomed house would certainly be a first on MyHome. God knows how you were allowed by the mortgage co to buy that.




What's outside the rear wall? A lane or someone elses property. You mentioned them parking cars against the wall which indicates a lane. I wouldn't worry about them parking cars to prevent work - the work could all be done from inside the house, near enough.

Yes it's a lane and then another row of houses. Putting in two windows would be the cheapest way and would bring a lot more value to the house I think. But I suppose I would need to go to the planning department with designs and see what they say, which is why I was asking my first question I suppose: Can I just walk in with plans, or do I need to make an appointment?

Edit: Maybe I should speak to the neighbour's behind me? See what they think? I guess 5 years is a long time, maybe they aren't as fussy as they were when I first moved in.

BryanF

Get drawings done by planning consultant
Speak to council with drawings and consultant
Submit application
Best of luck

antiskeptic

BryanF wrote: »

Get drawings done by planning consultant
Speak to council with drawings and consultant
Submit application
Best of luck

Would laneways be likely to have been taken over into council care? I'd have guessed not, given the poor state of many of them.

Would council p.p. be insufficient if the lane is private? Or how does that work if everyone (including the OP) owns the lane?

antiskeptic

CPTM wrote: »

Yes it's a lane and then another row of houses. Putting in two windows would be the cheapest way and would bring a lot more value to the house I think. But I suppose I would need to go to the planning department with designs and see what they say, which is why I was asking my first question I suppose: Can I just walk in with plans, or do I need to make an appointment?

Edit: Maybe I should speak to the neighbour's behind me? See what they think? I guess 5 years is a long time, maybe they aren't as fussy as they were when I first moved in.

1. Windows in a publically accessible lane won't add value that I can see. Isn't it a security risk: nice quiet lane to break in from would be burglar heaven.

2. You can seek an informal pre-planning meet. They typically take a couple of weeks from booking an appointment. You can't just walk in off the street.

In this meet you can present your outline plans

You could take photos of the situation in the lane (your house and its relation to neighbours houses) and mark in windows /brick faced ope where you figure they'd work. Present them on a laptop if you like but do put some thought into conveying the information you need to convey - its informal but neither is it chat.

The idea is for you to get a global (if non binding) opinion from the planners,without the trouble and expense of a full application. If your proposal gets a welcome in pre plan then you have at least some positive basis for putting together a formal plan - one which can also take account of any observations and recommendations the panners might mention at pre planning meet.

Ring the council, ask to be put through to planning, find out how you book a pre plan meet and what info they'll want you to bring.

You can DIY this part if you want.

3. I'd keep my powder dry on talking to the neighbours. I'm not sure how you'd find out about your rights to modify onto a private lane (if private). If you had plan.permiss and fired away then what action could anyone take legally? I dunno. Maybe the brick faced fire ope would be best from a security /neigbour acceptance pov?

BryanF

antiskeptic wrote: »

Would laneways be likely to have been taken over into council care? I'd have guessed not, given the poor state of many of them.

Would council p.p. be insufficient if the lane is private? Or how does that work if everyone (including the OP) owns the lane?

The only way I see the OP moving forward is to get drawings and meet the council with arch/arch tech who can speak to the planning Dept (and comment on fire safety). You’d have to query whether the original planning is in compliance.

I haven’t read all the thread, but I didn’t see any mention of private ownership of the lane. But IMO No planning application should show rooms without windows. If lane is in private ownership, And that was the actually the cause of an objection, I’d be seeking legal advice. But I doubt that’s the issue here.

CPTM

antiskeptic wrote: »

1. Windows in a publically accessible lane won't add value that I can see. Isn't it a security risk: nice quiet lane to break in from would be burglar heaven.

2. You can seek an informal pre-planning meet. They typically take a couple of weeks from booking an appointment. You can't just walk in off the street.

In this meet you can present your outline plans

You could take photos of the situation in the lane (your house and its relation to neighbours houses) and mark in windows /brick faced ope where you figure they'd work. Present them on a laptop if you like but do put some thought into conveying the information you need to convey - its informal but neither is it chat.

The idea is for you to get a global (if non binding) opinion from the planners,without the trouble and expense of a full application. If your proposal gets a welcome in pre plan then you have at least some positive basis for putting together a formal plan - one which can also take account of any observations and recommendations the panners might mention at pre planning meet.

Ring the council, ask to be put through to planning, find out how you book a pre plan meet and what info they'll want you to bring.

You can DIY this part if you want.

3. I'd keep my powder dry on talking to the neighbours. I'm not sure how you'd find out about your rights to modify onto a private lane (if private). If you had plan.permiss and fired away then what action could anyone take legally? I dunno. Maybe the brick faced fire ope would be best from a security /neigbour acceptance pov?

Thank you very much for that Antiskeptic

CPTM

BryanF wrote: »

The only way I see the OP moving forward is to get drawings and meet the council with arch/arch tech who can speak to the planning Dept (and comment on fire safety). You’d have to query whether the original planning is in compliance.

I haven’t read all the thread, but I didn’t see any mention of private ownership of the lane. But IMO No planning application should show rooms without windows. If lane is in private ownership, And that was the actually the cause of an objection, I’d be seeking legal advice. But I doubt that’s the issue here.

I don't think the entire breadth of the lane is private (I have seen the council come and repair the footpaths, if that's a sign). However the neighbours could argue that up against my back wall are parking spaces which they've been using for almost 100 years.

The layout working back from the front of my house is like:

Kitchen, 2 back bedrooms, rear boundary wall, their car parking spot, a lane, a foot path, the front doors of their property.

I'm not sure if it matters or not, but the previous owner didn't get planning permission for the work he carried out. I believe there was a small yard beside one of the bedrooms at the back. That's what the land registry shows anyways. Perhaps there was a door/window into that yard. When I bought it, the 7 year rule applied so the sale went through. I think the planning issue distracted everyone from any compliance element.

antiskeptic

CPTM wrote: »

I don't think the entire breadth of the lane is private (I have seen the council come and repair the footpaths, if that's a sign). However the neighbours could argue that up against my back wall are parking spaces which they've been using for almost 100 years.

The layout working back from the front of my house is like:

Kitchen, 2 back bedrooms, rear boundary wall, their car parking spot, a lane, a foot path, the front doors of their property.

I'm not sure if it matters or not, but the previous owner didn't get planning permission for the work he carried out. I believe there was a small yard beside one of the bedrooms at the back. That's what the land registry shows anyways. Perhaps there was a door/window into that yard. When I bought it, the 7 year rule applied so the sale went through. I think the planning issue distracted everyone from any compliance element.

Shoddy work by your solicitor, indeed, the basis for a complaint to the Law Society. It's standard practice for a solicitor to have the vendor obtain an opinion from an architect that any extension conforms to both planning and building regs at the time (or estimated time) of build.

If this doesn't come back kosher (as it couldn't in this case), it would have been up to the vendor to either rectify the issues (say, seek retention planning for the unauthorised build) or for the purchaser to decide to proceed despite the non-conformance.

To have walked in uninformed by your solicitor is your solicitors fault.


The lane sounds public. It sounds as if those houses opposite are mews developments? If not and if old then the lane sounds more like a road in any case.

No reason not to apply for planning. It would be up to your neighbours to object planning wise. I don't know, as I say, what legal avenue they could take, but it would be for them to take it.

If the opes were inward opening, then the escapees would simply clamber over the cars on their way out!