Shed for remote office

runawaybishop

California Dreamer wrote: »

Its not a permanent structure. I think you are just looking to make it harder than it actually is.

https://www.gardenrooms.ie/planning-permission/

25msq is what is allowed without PP. But all this is a mute exercise when the OP says hes on a budget. Nothing about this is going to be cheap. Your bog standard shed with nothing is going to be €600ish, a steel shed €1000 upwards and as for getting them, well thats another story altogether!

Permanent structure? That doesn't enter into it. If it's under 25m and doesn't reduce the garden space too much you shouldn't need planning. If you live in it (i.e sleep) then it does.

Op, metal sheds are about 3.5-4.5k for 25 m, base would be around 800-1k. Insulation would be say 1300 depending on the insulation value. You'd need a sparks out too so that's another few hundred.

Similar sized timber shed is cheaper for the base but more labour in erection etc. Metal roof will make it very hard to work when it raining, an EPDM roof is about 6/7 hundred. Doors and windows anywhere from a couple hundred up to thousands, depending on spec.

There are some shed builds in the DIY forum by posters, some really nice work and you can cut a lot of cost by doing work yourself if you are handy.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You might want to take a look in the mirror. You accuse me of 'solely thinking of YOURSELF' while you want to stop other people getting something just in case other people don't get something unrelated?

There is no connection between the two. If you bothered putting your thinking cap on before posting, you might have worked out that actually, allowing people who don't want to WFH back into the office leaves LESS space available to force anyone else to return to the office?

But unfortunately your position seems driven by spite and fear rather than any actual logic.

Here's just some of the people that you're turning your back on with your 'little to complain about' whinge.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0609/1146245-domestic-violence-gardai/

My reference to the practices of the naughties was to show that your claim that safety checks on home workspaces was 'a civil service' thing was untrue.

I really don't see where you're reading "spite and fear", in my posts, but I am getting tired of your aggressive attitude, so I will leave it at this.

Andrew, you have been a civil servant long enough to know it is ALL related.

Four or five posts later, you still choose to completely ignore the point I raised about non-essential staff being pressured into going back to office based work when the restrictions were last relaxed, even though the guidelines at the time were that those who could work from home, should continue to do so.

In your rush to get back into the office, you are dismissing THOSE people, and the potential for that to happen again, and that tells me all I need to know about who you are most concerned about, when it comes down to it.

So spare me the links to the DV stories. Your original moan had nothing to do with DV.

The Civil and Public Service have a responsibility to lead the way and be seen to enforce the recommended level of restrictions in relation to covid19 - not bend the rules to suit you, or anyone else simply because you are tired of them. We're all tired of them. But we do what we have to do.

And again, a reminder that these are TEMPORARY measures.

So, wash your hands, wear a mask, social distance, and stay safe.

OP, I hope you find a solution that works for you.

I'm out.

Mrs OBumble

Sorry, I didn't see the post from Mrs OBumble before my last one, so I'll just reply quickly...

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I'm ok with working from grossly unsatisfactory premises during a major public health emergency. But I don't expect that emergency to last forever. Once it's under control, I expect my employer to be providing all the tools and premises that are needed to do the job.

That's fair enough. I don't expect this to last forever either, and I fully expect to be back in my own office at least 50% of my time probably by next Spring. But its not up to you or me to decide when we think the situation is under control. That is up to NPHET and the Government. In the interim, we follow the guidelines for whatever Level we're at.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

While WFH might seem attractive, you need to remember that if a job can be done 100% WFH, it can be done 100% from Romania too, and there's someone there will do it a lot more cheaply than you will. This isn't such an issue for public servants, but is for private sector workers, and for any services that can be contracted out.

I haven't worked in the private sector for over 30 years, so can only refer to my own experience and you're right, they are not going to outsource 300,000 State jobs outside the State.

But, I could see an issue with WFH being expanded on in the C+PS in the future if some minority disgruntled C+PS staff start taking cases to the WRC over providing "free rent", or flexitime or any of the other posts I've seen. That is what I mean when I refer to "ruining it for everyone else". You can really tell who the true team players are, when it comes to these posts, and I know I wouldn't want them working in my section.

Mrs OBumble

Deleted User wrote: »

You can really tell who the true team players are, when it comes to these posts, and I know I wouldn't want them working in my section.

Team players are happy to WFH if there's a genuine need.

But when there's not, they want to actually play with the team, not hide at home in their PJs.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

But, I could see an issue with WFH being expanded on in the C+PS in the future if some minority disgruntled C+PS staff start taking cases to the WRC over providing "free rent", or flexitime or any of the other posts I've seen. That is what I mean when I refer to "ruining it for everyone else". You can really tell who the true team players are, when it comes to these posts, and I know I wouldn't want them working in my section.

I don't think I'd want to be working in the section of someone so thoroughly confused about cause and effect.

Deleted User wrote: »

I really don't see where you're reading "spite and fear", in my posts, but I am getting tired of your aggressive attitude, so I will leave it at this.

Andrew, you have been a civil servant long enough to know it is ALL related.

Four or five posts later, you still choose to completely ignore the point I raised about non-essential staff being pressured into going back to office based work when the restrictions were last relaxed, even though the guidelines at the time were that those who could work from home, should continue to do so.

In your rush to get back into the office, you are dismissing THOSE people, and the potential for that to happen again, and that tells me all I need to know about who you are most concerned about, when it comes down to it.

So spare me the links to the DV stories. Your original moan had nothing to do with DV.

The Civil and Public Service have a responsibility to lead the way and be seen to enforce the recommended level of restrictions in relation to covid19 - not bend the rules to suit you, or anyone else simply because you are tired of them. We're all tired of them. But we do what we have to do.

And again, a reminder that these are TEMPORARY measures.

So, wash your hands, wear a mask, social distance, and stay safe.

OP, I hope you find a solution that works for you.

I'm out.

Yes indeed, spare the stories about domestic violence, mental health, heating bills or anything else that doesn't 100% suit your agenda. We wouldn't want to let any facts get in the way here.

I've no idea why you are confusing two unrelated issues. The only connection between the two actually helps you. By letting staff who can't WFH back to the office, there will be less space left for anyone to be pressurised into returning to the office.

Letting staff who can't WFH back to the office won't spread Covid. There will be very small numbers of staff involved, sitting in the offices that are largely empty at present. Management of this return will be done using the same processes currently used to manage staff returning for essential work.


It's that simple.

AndrewJRenko

Your problem Andrew, is not that you CAN'T work from home, but that you don't WANT too.

CAN'T and WANT are two totally different scenarios. Stop confusing the two. A snippet of what you posted about your own personal situation:

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've lost what was the spare bedroom, so I can't even have a fight with the missus and go off and sulk now. I'm tripping over the start of the Xmas presents in the 'office' now. I've had to buy a desk and chair myself, and I'm faced with substantial extra heating costs over the winter. I've put on 7kgs in weight, mainly as a result of having unrestricted access to a well-stocked fridge all day..

You're not the champion of anyone else's cause here, except your own.

I'm sorry, but what happened when the restrictions were last lifted does not inspire the same confidence in me as it does in you, that its "as simple" as allowing managers to manage selectively by allowing those who WANT to return to office based work, to do so, while others remain WFH. Once you remove "essential" as a requirement, there is a risk that others will be pressured into returning to office buildings. There were threads here aplenty from employees (across both sectors) who described exactly that happened, some even being threatened with sanction if they did not return to offices even when the goverment advice continued to be "those who can work from home, should continue to do so."

As for the emergency being over? Less than a month ago we were recording 1000 new cases of covid19 a day. Yesterday, we had 400+ new cases so the emergency is hardly "over" just because you are ready to declare it so.

All I can add is if you're really that desperate to get out of your house then maybe talk to your supervisor about a transfer or temporary redeployment to a more essential role where you would be allowed access to a building, is an option you could explore. Some have redeployed from my dept to contact tracing on a six month basis and are working from office buildings around Dublin.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Your problem Andrew, is not that you CAN'T work from home, but that you don't WANT too.

CAN'T and WANT are two totally different scenarios. Stop confusing the two. A snippet of what you posted about your own personal situation:

You're not the champion of anyone else's cause here, except your own.

I'm sorry, but what happened when the restrictions were last lifted does not inspire the same confidence in me as it does in you, that its "as simple" as allowing managers to manage selectively by allowing those who WANT to return to office based work, to do so, while others remain WFH. Once you remove "essential" as a requirement, there is a risk that others will be pressured into returning to office buildings. There were threads here aplenty from employees (across both sectors) who described exactly that happened, some even being threatened with sanction if they did not return to offices even when the goverment advice continued to be "those who can work from home, should continue to do so."

As for the emergency being over? Less than a month ago we were recording 1000 new cases of covid19 a day. Yesterday, we had 400+ new cases so the emergency is hardly "over" just because you are ready to declare it so.

All I can add is if you're really that desperate to get out of your house then maybe talk to your supervisor about a transfer or temporary redeployment to a more essential role where you would be allowed access to a building, is an option you could explore. Some have redeployed from my dept to contact tracing on a six month basis and are working from office buildings around Dublin.

It's funny to see you telling us how the emergency is hardly over when a couple of posts back, you were telling us how everything was going to be back to normal in March. It's also funny to see you assuming what I oro thers have or haven't said to our employers to date.

It really doesn't matter whether it is 'can't' or 'won't' because the current regulations make no provision for either scenario.

However, and much more importantly, te idea that I or any other employee has to expose intimate personal detail of their home relationship or their personal financial status to their employer to justify avoiding a land-grab by their employer is bizarre. It's my home. It's my property. If my employer wants to use it, it HAS to be on my terms.

We were all flexible in the March emergency, but here we are, coming up to nine months later, with offices sitting almost completely empty, and still no plans to accommodate those staff who can't WFH.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's funny to see you telling us how the emergency is hardly over when a couple of posts back, you were telling us how everything was going to be back to normal in March.

You have a strange way of interpreting posts, Andrew. What I actually said was:

Deleted User wrote: »

That's fair enough. I don't expect this to last forever either, and I fully expect to be back in my own office at least 50% of my time probably by next Spring.

An expectation is something that may or may not happen. Not the same as saying it is going to happen as a certainty, as you are trying to imply.

You come across as a very angry man.

brookers

patrafter7 wrote: »

Could anyone recommend a timber shed installer who can construct a domestic remote office on a budget?

Thanks

Would you consider a camper van/motor home, that you could park in the drive way, there are some really cheap ones on the market that are second hand. You could have a wood burning stove in it , somewhere to boil a kettle and a toilet.....

krissovo

delly wrote: »

Here you go OP, a Pocket Office, as featured on the Late Late Show. All for the bargain price of €2.5k/€3k if I recall correctly. Not that I like to knock an Irish business, but how you can charge that much for a revamped car parking attendant box, I don't know.

https://www.borienstudio.com/wfh-pocket-1

feel free to drop by the DIY forum if you want a thread on your actual request. I see that this thread has descended into a a WFH debate unfortunately.

Sticking a bit of cladding on a building site toilet is hilarious, I love the innovation but the thought of 8 hours a day in that would make me join the crazies.

One of the lads I work with got a steel shed with concrete base for just under 3k with electrics, a decent heavy door & windows. Insulated with kingspan and a cheap stove from done deal and he is genuinely really happy.

sterling10

What are people’s thoughts on buying a garden pod or office (say 5k) or renovating the attic (say 15-20k) as the best option?

I’m worried with the pod I could end up some day having to renovate the attic anyway, or job change may render the pod a storage shed for footballs, while an attic would be an investment.

Obviously budget come into it, but which seems the better option if I had 15k available

Mrs OBumble

Depends on your age profile. Attic is better if you're likely able to climb the stairs for the next 10-20 years. But if you're older, then investment at ground level is probably a better idea.