Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

1000 square foot bungalow

  • 09-09-2022 10:10am
    #1
    Posts: 0


    What do you think it would cost to build a 1000 square foot bungalow if the site was already paid for and you did the block work yourself?



Comments

  • Subscribers Posts: 41,972 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    just the house build?

    around €180,000



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 453 ✭✭gazahayes


    Built 8m x 12m timber frame bungalow here start to finish €35,000 did everything except for electrics.



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]




  • Subscribers Posts: 41,972 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat




  • Registered Users Posts: 984 ✭✭✭Still stihl waters 3


    150 to 180 k, if you do everything basic cutting a few unnecessary modern day ad ons you'd probably do it a bit less



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 984 ✭✭✭Still stihl waters 3


    For 35 k it's probably a timber frame with cladding roof, minimal insulation, 4 to 6 inch slab or maybe built on posts and the very basic of everything, he built a shed and lived in it



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 453 ✭✭gazahayes


    Built it myself bale and a half of 6x2 timbers.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 453 ✭✭gazahayes


    Heating is ran of a multifuel log boiler burning mostly pallet timber.



  • Subscribers Posts: 41,972 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Ah ok, it's a shed that complies with no regulations at all then



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,228 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    Block work and frame of a house are usually the cheapest parts to complete. You will probably do footpaths septic tank etc as well.

    St present on direct builds the builders providers are f@@king you over on materials prices. You would need a QS to make sure they are not.

    If you go fairly basic and do the donkey work for the trades, mixing smaller quanties of concrete ( chasing walls lifting timbers for carpenter, doing vents etc you might get it done for 100k. But it probably not be to building specs unless you are really well up on that.

    I heard of a few 2nd and 3rd year apprentice's that are now doing Saturdays for themselves on small jobs. You get away with that with carpentry and plastering, maybe plumbing if it's fairly basic. You will need a registered electrician for the electrics and to sign off on them.

    What ever else make sure you insulated it well as heating costs are crazy.

    However them small bungalows are very easy to build and you might get a builder in for 130-150/ sqft depending on where in the country and depending on the finish you require

    One other issue is you will find insurance for while it's being build a problem if it's a direct build.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,433 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    So did you get planning permission for this house?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,433 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    Forgot to ask how you demonstrated the "house" was compliant with building regs and what documents did you submit with BCMS?



  • Registered Users Posts: 984 ✭✭✭Still stihl waters 3


    It's a shed that's livable if someone is willing to forego some modern comforts, probably perfectly adequate with a good supply of timber for heat and basic plumbing, it would surprise some here the amount of houses are not being built to regulation



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    It's probably completely illegal, but then again 75% of those very few rental properties which local authorities bother their arsers to actually inspect don't comply with the law either so....

    In today's housing market, I actually don't have a problem with someone illegally building a property to live in. €35k is about 2 years rent of a 1 bed apartment where I live— in theory at least, seeing as how there's all of 19 properties available to rent in the entire county with a population of more than 220k....

    I'm no anarchist, but the government (local & national) and the market have failed miserably for over decade to provide sufficient homes for the population— you can hardly blame someone for giving them both the middle finger and proceeding to provide a home for themselves and to hell with what the law says. If he avoids having to demolish the place for 5 or 6 years he'll have saved himself about €50k in rent. I'd do the same given the opportunity.



  • Registered Users Posts: 984 ✭✭✭Still stihl waters 3


    Exactly my point, if someone can provide a home for themselves and get away with it for small money more power to them



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Are they realistic to last long term though??,


    I'd gladly live in a shed,as described here,but wouldn't wanna be facing into a full rebuild as I headed for pension age



  • Registered Users Posts: 984 ✭✭✭Still stihl waters 3


    It would be fine if theres no damp getting in, treated timber and plenty heat and ventilation, it'll last decades if maintained and kept water tight, the money saved on rent/mortgage would more than pay for the upkeep even if only on a minimum wage, hard to blame anyone going down that road given the opportunity



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Depends really on your definition of "long-term" and the quality of the workmanship and maintenance. So, the same as any construction really.

    Looking at it another way, there's plenty of 50 or 60 year old houses sold that need a full renovation to get them up to modern living standards. Plenty of those would be demolished & a new house built except for the fact that it's easier to get planning to extend. Rejecting a DIY timber house on the basis that it won't last forever ignore the reality that no house will. And Gazahayes doesn't need it to last forever— 2 or 3 years and he's got his money's worth, anything after that is a bonus.

    And yes, there's likely to be issues with building regulations, fire safety etc. But the large majority of apartments in this country and a large proportion of houses also have fire safety issues (remember that there were NO building regulations until about 1989, so the large majority of homes in this country don't adhere to modern standards). (EDIT- let's not forget pyrite, mica, & Priory Hall!)

    Given my own experience of renovating my home, I estimate about 80% of costs are labour— so Gazahayes could well have build €175k worth of house for €35k worth of materials. I also estimate based on the workmanship I've uncovered as part of the renovations that about 80% of "craftsmen" don't give a runny poo about doing the job right, just quick so they get paid— so I have no difficulty with the concept that a motivated DIY builder who did their research could do the job better than the "professionals".



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Any chance of a few photos? So we can see what we're talking about?



  • Registered Users Posts: 984 ✭✭✭Still stihl waters 3


    Very true, a handy man with experience in a range of construction, for example a labourer or good groundworker or indeed anyone willing to learn and that has the time with a good head on him could build a very adequate dwelling that would do the rest of their lives on a tight budget, if I was in the same boat it wouldn't cost me a thought and to hell with regulations



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 444 ✭✭SodiumCooled


    One other issue is you will find insurance for while it's being build a problem if it's a direct build.

    Just wanted to comment on this - I am not sure why insurance would be an issue - we had no difficulty whatsoever getting insurance for a direct labour selfbuild - there are at least 2 companies offering this specific type of insurance just talk to your local insurance broker.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,433 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    self build timber shed construction to be used as a dwelling house? Can't see any company insuring that particularly after occupation without the proper certification.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    If someone is building a cabin in the woods to live in, insurance cover probably doesn't figure in their cost-benefit analyses.

    Aside from the 10,000+ registered homeless, there's many thousands more 2 or more to a room with strangers, or living with their parents etc. Or paying stupid money for a room in a house/apartment with strangers. Living ultra cheap cheap in a timber shed would be a big improvement over renting for many people, (even assuming if it's uninsulated & without plasterboard etc).

    People are sharing transit vans to sleep in because they can't get even the sh1ttiest place to live. So to hell with proper certification & insurance cover.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 444 ✭✭SodiumCooled


    Bass Reeves was responding to the original post - it made no mention of timber construction nor did Bass Reeves in his post (in fact the op said they would block lay it him/herself). The conversion on timber construction was a bit of a deviation from what was in the first post.

    My comment was on difficulty in getting selfbuild insurance for a traditional construction direct labour build - which is what it seemed to me that Bass was suggesting.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 436 ✭✭Girl Geraldine


    Absolutely. And good luck to whatever local authority wants to try force a person to demolish their unauthorised development. Remember that big McMansion up in Meath somehere that was built with no planning? The council, ABP and the courts just got a massive middle finger from the owner who basically wiped his arse with the Court Order and as still sitting pretty, many many years after the original "enforcement" by the council.

    I think what some here take issue with is the fact that people doing direct build with their own money on their own land to their own specification are doing them out of their inflated professional fees.

    More power to these industrious people. If they can build a basic home that fulfils their needs and is comfortable for them, and they avoid being encumbered with debt and the beureacracy of planning, then fair play to them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 436 ✭✭Girl Geraldine


    Well if you have built it on a bare bones budget for cash, then you won't be at the same loss money wise as someone who borrowed up to their bollox for an overpriced slap up celtic tiger fisherprice house in the commuter belt.

    They would get over it and probably have the funds and capability to rebuilt it again for cash.

    Someone who builds their own house, however basic, is probably very practical, resourceful and inventive anyhow and well able for the challenge.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,433 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    Yep, sorry I didn't read your post correctly. Happy for the heads up!



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    In fairness, that comment is totally unfair and you should withdraw it.

    Fisher Price products were (and to this day still are) subjected to strict standards of construction and rigorous safety regulations, as well as routine inspections and enforcement to ensure adherence to those standards and regulations, before, during, and after the Celtic Tiger period.

    Insinuating that products bearing the Fisher Price brand are (or were) produced to the miserably low standards and employing the poor practices which prevailed in the Irish construction industry up until <...thinks briefly...> Tuesday of last week is slanderous in my opinion.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 436 ✭✭Girl Geraldine


    Another one that annoys me is this notion that BCAR regulations were the silver bullet for the non-compliance and workmanship issues which typified the celtic tiger build.

    I can tell you, something can satisfy the building regs and tick all the BCAR boxes, and still be a complete cowboy's hatchet job.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,433 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    First of all the owners of the house in Meath have 10 days left to comply with the court order.

    If your comments about professional fees are directed at me then you are very wide of the mark.

    I didn't make the rules and regulations that people are expected to comply with but if you want to have a lash at anyone and everyone then go ahead and knock yourself out. Where's your next port of call, over to the motors forum to shout about why you should be allowed to build your own car and refuse to tax or insure it or get a road worthiness cert for it?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,433 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    Respecting the law was always paramount in all discussions in the forum.



  • Subscribers Posts: 41,972 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Most professionals in the industry who were at the coal face of building regulation compliance at domestic level were saying all along that the BCAR system was not the solution, and wouldn't do anything to increase building quality in Ireland. It actually copper fastened the "self certification" problems that previously existed. it caused specifications and design to become very defensive and generic.

    All it did was completely insulate those who have the power to enforce the regulations, from being responsible for enforcing the regulations ie the local authority building control section

    Post edited by sydthebeat on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 436 ✭✭Girl Geraldine


    I can't see them complying with it. That case has been rumbling on for many many years. My bet is that they will do some other sort of wrangle tangle legal contortions to squeeze another few years out of the process, or just flat out disregard the court order and brazen it out again like the brass necked cute hoors that they are.

    A hoor move here would be to have a family member move in and the person named on the court order go into hiding for a few weeks. Lad in the house just says, nah Garda he's not here, he has it rented to me for a few months. "They say he's in Canada...or England...or maybe just around" Sure ya can't knock the house I'm living in with de childers!

    Eventually it'll all blow over. Council aren't going to want the bad publicity of knocking a family's house in the middle of a housing and cost of living crisis. Neither will they want the expense of knocking and restoring the site to green field condition because the owners clearly aren't going to do it and will plead poverty if the council want them to pay for it.

    I have come to the conclusion that in Ireland, if you sufficiently brazen necked and shameless enough, you can flout the law and get away with nearly anything and the state will be too chicken sh!t to take you on in a meaningful way beyond a few sternly worded letters listing off the regulations you are breaching followed by a few empty, utterly hollow threats.



  • Subscribers Posts: 41,972 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    It won't blow over.

    The council, who are the "planning authority", cannot be seen to be impotent when it comes enforcing the laws that everyone else has to comply with



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 436 ✭✭Girl Geraldine


    Council's up and down the country display their incompetence and impotence every day of the week.

    Impotence and absolute lack of resolve to tackle planning issues, littering, dog fouling, traffic and parking offences, fly tipping, environmental offences, vandalism, housing shenanigans with extreme antisocial behaviour and travelers, and any number of other things where they are ineffectual.

    Why will this be different?

    Knock a family's home? And put them out on road in the middle of a housing and cost of living crisis?

    The council will blink here. They will absolutely win the legal battle decisively, hands down. But where they will falter is in not having the balls to follow through on it. They won't have the guts for it when it comes to going in there with the Gardai to drag the residents out of it and then take the bulldozer to it with the media and social media activists outside the gate watching and broadcasting every move.

    What's to say the owners wouldn't know the contractor's personnel, and either pay them off or intimidate them into not doing the job, or doing the job so slowly and ineffectively that it draws unacceptable negative public attention on the council.

    If I was that owner and it looked like the council was shaping up to get their contractor in with demolition gear I would have every rag-tag bunch of BPB/ULA, loony-left anti-eviction rent-a-mobs down to the place to create a social-media hysteria and generate as much negative publicity against the council as possible.

    If it was me and it was looking like the fight was lost and the council were going to follow through, I'd make sure to offer the place up to the travelers for them to use as a halting site crime den. I'd make sure to invite in the most unsavoury and criminally inclined set of them east of the Shannon.

    And the Planning Authority and the Court can chew on them for another 10 years and see how tough they are then.

    Post edited by Girl Geraldine on


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I'm not aware of any legal obligation to have home insurance? It's a good idea certainly (to protect your investment and against claims for damages) and often contractually required (for mortgages), but legally mandatory?

    And unless I'm very much mistaken the legal requirement to obtain planning permission & comply with building regulations has a built in expiry date— as in enforcement proceedings must be initiated within a particular period (or periods?) from when the non-compliant works are done. After that, the existence of planning permission and compliance with regulations is a matter between you and potential purchasers or mortgagees— but not something which you can be taken to task for by any emanation of the state.

    So the law foresees the scenario where parts of the laws are ignored, and says that after X length of time that's fine as far as the state is concerned. So you can in fact legally build the least compliant structure in the country and make yourself legally free & clear as far as the state is concerned just by running out the clock.

    Are you going to get a mortgage or insurance on your self-built cabin in the woods? Highly unlikely. Are you going to find a willing buyer for it? Maybe, maybe not. But the same can be said of many, many properties built pre-63 or pre-89. Those are questions which arise between legal persons, the state is not involved.

    Just because someone supports the taking of calculated risks (principally the risk of enforcement proceedings being initiated within the required period) within the law, that is not equivalent to disrepecting the law.

    The punter building the cabin in the woods and then running out the clock didn't make the law, he is in fact operating within unless & until enforcement proceedings are initiated— barely, but it still counts.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 436 ✭✭Girl Geraldine


    Abububu. There's knowing the law, and knowing the law well enough to know how you can circumvent it, all perfectly legally.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    To be fair, there's a big difference between building a cabin in the woods and building a 580 square metre house in full view of the world.

    I'd actually be on the side of the council on that one— they have to follow through, otherwise every idiot will be doing the same. They rolled the dice on enforcement and have lost. They'll never sell or mortgage that house, and in the fullness of time the structure & the land it's on will probably be repossessed to pay for legal fees.

    I could see myself throwing €50k max at building a cabin in the woods— but if the council gets wise before the clock runs out, that's it game over & it was nice while it lasted. Calculated risks, not stupid ones.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 436 ✭✭Girl Geraldine


    Fair enough. I would be putting my money on the owners there. I don't know them of course, but I know that they and their extended families would be notorious in that part of the country.

    if push does come to shove, the council will have a very very expensive, messy and arduous adventure in proving their potency.

    Who ever mentioned a mortgage. It was built and paid for with cash.

    They are not short of money.



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I think,I'd have to go this route,despite working full time, reasonable level of savings,what I get in a mortgage plus the savings leave me between 30 and 50K short......

    by time I have that saved,it will likely be the same again short



  • Advertisement
Advertisement