House does not need planning?

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565503#Comment_121565503

So what kind of changes would be part of your "radical" approach to making houses more affordable given that the existing regulations are (in your view) an expensive hindrance to those wishing to get a property?

gossamerfabric

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565410#Comment_121565410

On the flipside, if these exempt 25 sq. metre buildings are such Death Traps then Government should ban them with immediate effect.

coolbeans

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565647#Comment_121565647

The 25sqm is not for residences but for ancillary structures. Your premise to increase this allowance to 50sqm to provide microhomes (if I understand you) is therefore faulty.

It would also be a disaster.

Del2005

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565410#Comment_121565410

Planning permission is for residential use regardless of the size. Building regulations are to protect people regardless of the size of home you want to make.

Rules and regulations are built on blood, do you want more blood?

gossamerfabric

The homeless are still homeless. My brother built a house using direct labour some thirty years ago which provided shelter and security. It is far from complying with current building regulations. He hasn't come down with consumption, the building is fireproof and reasonable to heat while my neighbour has his grown children in mobile homes within the curtilage of the homestead he owns. Ireland has regressed with regard to provision of shelter rather than progressed.

Those who champion the current regulations really need to revisit their position because what works in theory, certainly isn't working out well in practice.

I see I am not "on-message" so I will drop out of the discussion.

StupidLikeAFox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121558133#Comment_121558133

But if you look at the pictures that folds down to a smaller size, possibly container size

Any scope to put the base on wheels and call it a "caravan"?

artanevilla

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565824#Comment_121565824

Survivorship bias is heavy here.

gossamerfabric

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565867#Comment_121565867

I agree...the Homeless pass away silently through ill health or at their own hands.

muffler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565840#Comment_121565840

It doesn't indicate what the structure is made off so it's possible that it could be shipping containers but I think it's unlikely.

Putting wheels on it or calling it a caravan still doesn't exempt it from planning regulations.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121558070#Comment_121558070

There might as well be 'no planning laws'

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/build-first-ask-later-how-thousands-are-building-without-planning-permission-and-getting-away-with-it/a2037036538.html

muffler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121578972#Comment_121578972

I actually laughed at that slanted piece of reporting when I read it earlier. Typical Indo stuff in that they couldnt publish a balanced article. The ratio of refusals to grants (of retention permission) is pretty much the same as those that are refused/granted when applying for planning permission in the first instance.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121580570#Comment_121580570

Here's another Indo one for you to laugh at;

https://archive.ph/RNuJy

I suppose the program would never see the light of day if the planners refused the retention planning permission for the dormer window.

Risky!

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627626#Comment_121627626

If you read the article completely it's only the master ensuite upstairs that required planning, the ground floor extension did not.

It a calculated risk, if you wait for permission its probably 6-8k in additional rental for the couple over 6-8 months. With the way building prices go a 5% increase while waiting is another 10-15k.

If permission was refused you can always take away the ensuite bedroom down the line. However you have an Bord Pleanala and a judicial review in the mean time and while the LA could enforce a demolition could it enforce a partial demolition?

IsaacWunder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627803#Comment_121627803

Never mind the article. If you look at the planning application, the extended ground floor area is 50 m sq, meaning it’s not exempt.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627855#Comment_121627855

Was that Inc the upstairs? If so the new kitchen/living area is below the threshold

well24

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121558070#Comment_121558070

In fairness our planning, regulations and standards are a bit of a joke - pyrite, mica for example!

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121628210#Comment_121628210

they have been since their inception.

the fact anyone can object to your application is a joke. The objector should be made show that they have a material interest in the adjoining lands, or would be materially affected by, the proposed development.

IsaacWunder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627995#Comment_121627995

It wasn’t. And even if it did include the upstairs, I am almost certain the total floor area still has to be below 40 sq/m (combined above and below ground) to be exempt from planning. In other words, if you use the maximum exempt allowance to build 20 sq/m upstairs, that leaves you with a maximum of 20 sq/m downstairs.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121628334#Comment_121628334

have you a link to the application?

well24

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121628282#Comment_121628282

Might make the guys spouting about how great having planning regulations / standards etc in place helps protect them etc..

How did these help when your house is crumbling around you?

Good in theory, but in practise dont work, additionally if they hinder safe buildings in a housing / rental crisis!

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565647#Comment_121565647

There is no planning exemption for 25sqm microhomes. If somebody wanted to build one, it needs planning. So your "flipside" is exactly the current law. I think your misunderstand of the law and really undermined the point you thought you were making.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121565824#Comment_121565824

I imagine your brothers home complied with regs from 30 years ago. People are not championing the current regs, and the current regs only. They are sayign you can't just ignore all the regs and do what you like.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121628210#Comment_121628210

I'm not sure that mica, pyrite issues make the regs a joke. Seeing as they don;t meet the regquirements imo.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627995#Comment_121627995

You can't apply the exemption to part of a development. Either it is all under 40m2, or it all requires planning.

Unless they built it as two separate extensions. Which presumably they didn't.

Edit. I just check the application. It was 85 square metres total. The story in the article is a fabrication. It required planning from the start.

IsaacWunder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121628343#Comment_121628343

https://www.eplanning.ie/TipperaryCC/AppFileRefDetails/2360921/0

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627803#Comment_121627803

I read the article alright, I did not mention the ground floor extension. However I thought the dormer window was to the front of the house, on looking again, it appears it’s to the side.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121627995#Comment_121627995

Did you read the article completely?

“The project started off as a 40sqm extension to the rear of the house, which would have been an exempted development. During construction and when the clients saw the attic space, they asked if it could be used as a bedroom. The conversion from attic space to habitable space pushed it over the 40sqm, so we took a decision to apply for retention permission as the structure had been constructed as a roof,”

well24

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121628389#Comment_121628389

OMG are you serious... thats a ridiculous attitude!

they dont meet requirements so how did so many houses get thru? All well and good having standards and all that, but if they aint checked and enforced, whats the point... waste of paper then!

Every single house in my estate (around 60) had to be done for pyrite recently, costing the taxpayer (like yourself I assume) alot...

Where were the regulations here, and punishment for the quarry / developer etc... nothing!

muffler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121628452#Comment_121628452

Planning has nothing to do with that. However, defective materials including workmanship are governed by the building regulations.

muffler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121628334#Comment_121628334

That's correct.

Having looked at the drawings lodged with the planning application the ground floor extension is 50 sq. metres. The attic area is in addition to this. So Mr Bannon designed an extension that wasn't exempt from planning and carried on regardless. I have to say that was a bit bullish to put it mildly.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121628452#Comment_121628452

What attitude is ridiculous, you not are being very clear?

You said the regulations were a joke. Implying the standards are somehow at fault. Then you pointed to instances of non-compliant materials. That in no way backs up your claims. Surely you see that. It's like saying the speed limits are ridiculous, then pointing to deaths caused by people speeding. (hopefully you see why that illogical).

So you think the regs are ridiculous. Are you suggesting they should be lowered? Making Pyrite acceptable? Or should they be higher, meaning the pyrite is not acceptable (as it is currently), which wouldn't have changed the pyrite situation. As I said, your claims don't make a lot of sense.

Every single house in my estate (around 60) had to be done for pyrite recently, costing the taxpayer (like yourself I assume) alot...

They had to be done because they were sub-standard materials. The issue there is the material, not the standard. That should be really obvious.

Where were the regulations here, and punishment for the quarry / developer etc... nothing!

How should a builder determine that the bricks he was supplied are defective? Why should a builder be punished because he was supplied defective materials? Using that logic, it becomes the home owners problem when he buys the defective house (to be clear, I'm highlighting how lawed your logic is).

If he builder/developer knew, then that's a different story, and legally they would be responsible .

well24

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121628840#Comment_121628840

I see you conveniently left out "? All well and good having standards and all that, but if they aint checked and enforced, whats the point... waste of paper then!"

Plus "Where were the regulations here, and punishment for the quarry / developer etc... nothing!"

Only focused on the builder here, completely ignoring quarry, and any mention of what help the regulations were to all the houses affected by pyrite / mica!

Pretty pointless long post!

Just so all are clear, I think it is a very good idea to have regulations and all that lark, as long as they are enforced and strict checks are made... this obviously did not happen with pyrite / mica... my understanding of having these is to ensure that things like this dont happen, but they did - that is where I am getting my 'pointless' opinion about!

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121632678#Comment_121632678

I didn't leave it out. I specifically asked you how the builder should check them? The building contractor being the developer in those instances. Can to fumble an answer. Because I can't help but notice you dodged that.

Developing on that. Who do you think should be checking them building materials for defects. Whose responsibility do you think it is? You expect the government to test every building product on the market? That's a big task, who's paying for it? Also not sure how you think that's related to planning.

It's like food safety. You can't sell food contaminated with e.coli or similar obvious. But it happens. If there's a outbreak, they investigate to find the contaminated food and remove it. It's not ideal, but that's the process. They couldn't possibly test all the food sold everywhere all the time to ensure no defective food gets to market.

Only focused on the builder here, completely ignoring quarry, and any mention of what help the regulations were to all the houses affected by pyrite / mica!

Do you think the quarries (during the 90s and celtic tiger 2000s) were aware they were quarrying stone with a mineral that could cause back fill to well? And decided to sell it any way. OR do you think that prior to 2007, people were unaware that the issue existed in Ireland.

And sorry, are you really saying that standards were of no help to those houses? You can't actually be serious. A reminder of what you said

Every single house in my estate (around 60) had to be done for pyrite recently, costing the taxpayer (like yourself I assume) alot...

The houses were rectified by the state, at considerable cost to the state. Not to the homeowner. Why was that?

Just so all are clear, I think it is a very good idea to have regulations and all that lark, as long as they are enforced and strict checks are made... this obviously did not happen with pyrite / mica... my understanding of having these is to ensure that things like this dont happen, but they did - that is where I am getting my 'pointless' opinion about!

As I said above. How do you think that was suppose to happen? Are you really saying the state or somebody should have been testing or mineral that causes a defect that we didn't know exists.

You "understanding" in bold is basically incorrect. Standards and regulations do not magically prevent issues. They reduce issues, and when issues occur, they established a benchmark to proportion liability.