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

Shed to let out back garden!!

Options
«134

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    bri007 wrote: »
    How is this still allowed. Surely it wouldn’t meet current fire and building regulations. Basically a shed advertised to let for €1k a month. Imagine a fire broke out!

    https://www.daft.ie/for-rent/apartment-millbrook-avenue-donaghmede-dublin-13/2884962

    I wonder if there was planning permission given, needed if the build is to be used as a habitable space.


  • Options
    #3
    bri007
    Registered Users Posts: 1,375 ✭✭✭bri007


    I was wondering the same thing. Judging by some of the pictures from the outside with a lot of wood structure on it I doubt it would have passed... could be wrong now to be fair as not my field of expertise but doesn’t looks legit
    weldoninhio wrote: »
    I wonder if there was planning permission given, needed if the build is to be used as a habitable space.


  • Options
    #4
    macchoille
    Registered Users Posts: 135 ✭✭macchoille


    Heating and water all looks to be electric so that only bill might be expensive.

    I wonder what the story would be regarding receiving post/parcels or even fast food deliveries.


  • Options
    #5
    ShaneC93
    Registered Users Posts: 268 ✭✭ShaneC93


    bri007 wrote: »
    How is this still allowed

    It's not, you could report it to DCC for not meeting the minimum requirements for apartment rental of a new-built.

    It's definitely not meeting the 45 sq.m min. 1-bed size nor does it have all the required appliances (i.e. the required 4-place hob vs. the 2-place hob they have fitted).


  • Options
    #6
    Juwwi
    Registered Users Posts: 4,248 ✭✭✭Juwwi


    Presuming the electric comes from the fuse board in the main house if both the main house and the shed both have the electric oven and electric showers on at the same time that's alot of power at the one time ,that's excluding the electric heaters ect ,, these sort of set ups need big fines as a deterrent if they don't fall under the regulations .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    fkdws2
    Registered Users Posts: 1 ✭fkdws2


    142 Millbrook Avenue, Donaghmede

    photos on google when house was for sale


  • Options
    #8
    punisher5112
    Registered Users Posts: 24,647 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    macchoille wrote: »
    Heating and water all looks to be electric so that only bill might be expensive.

    I wonder what the story would be regarding receiving post/parcels or even fast food deliveries.

    Has a side gate shared with next door by what I can see....


  • Options
    #9
    1874
    Registered Users Posts: 2,384 ✭✭✭1874


    ShaneC93 wrote: »
    It's not, you could report it to DCC for not meeting the minimum requirements for apartment rental of a new-built.

    It's definitely not meeting the 45 sq.m min. 1-bed size nor does it have all the required appliances (i.e. the required 4-place hob vs. the 2-place hob they have fitted).

    regardless of this place or back garden structures not being legit, the rules around white goods are ridiculous, but a rule on how many hobs are required is just outright stupidity, there are legitimate places that would suit a 2 hob setup, it should be ammended to refer to property size/no. of rooms/occupancy no.


  • Options
    #10
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    1874 wrote: »
    regardless of this place or back garden structures not being legit, the rules around white goods are ridiculous, but a rule on how many hobs are required is just outright stupidity, there are legitimate places that would suit a 2 hob setup, it should be ammended to refer to property size/no. of rooms/occupancy no.


    Ive a 2 hob cooker where i live.
    Hope the council dont come to evict me :)


  • Options
    #11
    Alias G
    Registered Users Posts: 790 ✭✭✭Alias G


    It wouldn't be so galling if it was advertised for low rent. But they have the cheek to ask for 1k.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    punisher5112
    Registered Users Posts: 24,647 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    To be honest it's in better shape then most rentals.

    Yes it's a shed but tiz a mighty fine one at that.

    €1k though is an insult to be honest and regulation of these types could well help people to get a place of their own that it's not a house share or living with the LL set up which are an absolute pain a lot of the time.

    I can't honestly see why we can't have set ups as such once rules are followed and it doesn't actually impact on neighbours.

    If these were actually set up right, good standard, affordable and right price for what it is I'd be all for changes.


  • Options
    #13
    FluffPiece
    Registered Users Posts: 368 ✭✭FluffPiece


    I'd have thought a greedy ****er would live in the shed and rent out the house for twice the price


  • Options
    #14
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,917 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    I wonder if there was planning permission given, needed if the build is to be used as a habitable space.

    There would not appear to be "recent" (last 15 years) planning for something of that type in any property on that road


  • Options
    #15
    HansKroenke
    Closed Accounts Posts: 254 ✭✭HansKroenke


    Just to note that, should anyone wish to report the dwelling for suspected breach of planning legislation, the complaint is not anonymous.


  • Options
    #16
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    HansKroenke wrote: »
    Just to note that, should anyone wish to report the dwelling for suspected breach of planning legislation, the complaint is not anonymous.

    The complainant is anonymous. The home owner will not be given any details of who complained. You have to give your details in case it goes to court, and in that case, the council will contact you to see if you are willing to provide court testimony or a statement, you are under no obligation to. It's all explained on the complaint form.


  • Options
    #17
    loyatemu
    Registered Users Posts: 14,813 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    The complainant is anonymous. The home owner will not be given any details of who complained. You have to give your details in case it goes to court, and in that case, the council will contact you to see if you are willing to provide court testimony or a statement, you are under no obligation to. It's all explained on the complaint form.

    why would they need court testimony from the complainant though - it's a shed in a back garden, the council just have to send an inspector round, if it's non-compliant, it's non-compliant regardless of who reported it.


  • Options
    #18
    punisher5112
    Registered Users Posts: 24,647 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    loyatemu wrote: »
    why would they need court testimony from the complainant though - it's a shed in a back garden, the council just have to send an inspector round, if it's non-compliant, it's non-compliant regardless of who reported it.

    Nothing stopping one having a shed but where the law comes in if it's used to be lived in....

    If this wasn't the case then one wouldn't be able to have man caves etc....


  • Options
    #19
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    loyatemu wrote: »
    why would they need court testimony from the complainant though - it's a shed in a back garden, the council just have to send an inspector round, if it's non-compliant, it's non-compliant regardless of who reported it.

    I didn't compile the form, so i'm not sure, but it's all there.

    https://www.dublincity.ie/residential/planning/planning-applications/planning-enforcement/how-make-planning-enforcement-complaint


  • Options
    #20
    HansKroenke
    Closed Accounts Posts: 254 ✭✭HansKroenke


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    The complainant is anonymous. The home owner will not be given any details of who complained. You have to give your details in case it goes to court, and in that case, the council will contact you to see if you are willing to provide court testimony or a statement, you are under no obligation to. It's all explained on the complaint form.

    Yes, sorry. For the purpose of the investigation your details are anonymous but the council has to have your name and contact details.


  • Options
    #21
    TylerRyan28
    Registered Users Posts: 114 ✭✭TylerRyan28


    HansKroenke wrote: »
    Yes, sorry. For the purpose of the investigation your details are anonymous but the council has to have your name and contact details.


    So how are they all still standing if they get reported to the DCC . Most people will fight it and go to court could be a long time before you even get to court if you ever do.

    The person who owns the property will then ask why are the other logcabins around me still up, if take one down they would all have to come down which doesnt happen.

    There was a story before of a man who built one in the west of Ireland I think he had nowhere else to live . So the council told him they would get him somewhere to live , when he took the logcabin down he went back to the council who told him they didnt know what he was talking about basically f***ed him over.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,620 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    HansKroenke wrote: »
    Just to note that, should anyone wish to report the dwelling for suspected breach of planning legislation, the complaint is not anonymous.
    weldoninhio wrote: »
    The complainant is anonymous. The home owner will not be given any details of who complained. You have to give your details in case it goes to court, and in that case, the council will contact you to see if you are willing to provide court testimony or a statement, you are under no obligation to. It's all explained on the complaint form.


    You send the complaint to planningenforcement@dublincity.ie

    You must include your name and address so that it’s not a fictitious complaint (yes it does happen).

    The building owner will then get a Section 152 letter. They have 4 weeks to reply to the council who will carry out a site inspection. This has to happen legally.

    Your details are confidential. They will never be released, even to the courts or through FOI. And FOI requests on the file are heavily redacted to remove names, address, email or phone number.

    The council will never ask you, the complainant if you are will img to go to court to testify. This is the reason why the inspector inspects the site so the photos he/she takes can be used in court. The inspector is an authorised officer and only their statement, photos and evidence can be used if it goes to court. It would be too unreliable and can be easily argued by the other side.


  • Options
    #23
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,620 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    TylerRyan28 wrote: »
    So how are they all still standing if they get reported to the DCC . Most people will fight it and go to court could be a long time before you even get to court if you ever do.

    The person who owns the property will then ask why are the other logcabins around me still up, if take one down they would all have to come down which doesnt happen.

    There was a story before of a man who built one in the west of Ireland I think he had nowhere else to live . So the council told him they would get him somewhere to live , when he took the logcabin down he went back to the council who told him they didnt know what he was talking about basically f***ed him over.

    Sometimes it’s the use that’s the breach. So the structure can be exempt but living in it is the problem. Once evidence of
    No one living there then the file is closed but the structure maybe able
    To stay if within the exemption limits.


  • Options
    #24
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 33,168 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Surely if someone is sitting on the other side of the country on the internet, its none of their concern that a shed is being rented in Dublin for 1k per month?

    But I'd like to think maybe the authorities might actually spot things like this themselves without needing informants to highlight them?


  • Options
    #25
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,620 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    NIMAN wrote: »
    Surely if someone is sitting on the other side of the country on the internet, its none of their concern that a shed is being rented in Dublin for 1k per month?

    But I'd like to think maybe the authorities might actually spot things like this themselves without needing informants to highlight them?

    Planning Enforcement relies on the complaints process.
    They wouldn’t have the staff to drive around looking at everything then cross referencing if it has planning or not.


  • Options
    #26
    djan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,762 ✭✭✭djan


    I think that it's a fantastic idea. Gives the opportunity for someone to have their own space at only a bit more than a double bedroom in a house share of that area.

    Finish and size is good and with an own door entry to garden it would be nicer to live in than a lot of places up on daft.ie.

    End of the day it's seemingly good quality accommodation added to the market thus helping satisfy demand and lower prices. If half the people did this, it would be going for half the price and people would be happy out both ways.


  • Options
    #27
    1874
    Registered Users Posts: 2,384 ✭✭✭1874


    Gumbo wrote: »
    Planning Enforcement relies on the complaints process.
    They wouldn’t have the staff to drive around looking at everything then cross referencing if it has planning or not.


    tbh the interior looks very clean, could suit someone, what exactly are the councils doing about accommodation? Not sure what the regs are re the having a washer & dryer in a bathroom. Doesn't look insulated, they could have gone a bit extra and airtight/insulated and run a small MVHR and it'd probably be better than most houses.

    I lodged a complaint against a neighbour and my council were useless, even defending the person and the structures when the obvious defects and problems were highlighted, they weren't lived in but were appallingly poor work and had problems related to their use affected us, council were useless when the whole thing was pointed out to them.
    I can see why people wouldnt even bother approaching them.


  • Options
    #28
    1874
    Registered Users Posts: 2,384 ✭✭✭1874


    Im not a particular fan of these, but when you see some of the shoddy sheds and other things that are allowed, I dont get the Councils significant objection.
    So long as they are electrically safe/compliant and certain measures regards safety and energy efficiency has been made, I wouldnt be opposed.


    My main concern is the electrics, if thats done right, then work away, dont see the councils sorting anything re accommodation, the 1k would be a bit hard to take. But it could be a useful way to increase accomodation capacity if certain criteria were met.



    I think its the "fault loop impedance" thats of main concern electrically, potentially due to the increased length of the earth wiring. If the main house has a pumped or gravity shower then the electric shower might not issues regarding current draw and specific wiring requirements.


  • Options
    #29
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,503 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    TylerRyan28 wrote: »
    True yes I would say 95% of them are being used to be lived in . Then again they could have the logcabin built and wait to get reported and no evidence of it being used to live it. Then get a kitchen & bathroom fitted after case is closed. could get reported again after that

    They don't even have to go to that much trouble. The council tell you weeks ahead they will be coming for a look. You just remove the bed and put it back 5 mins after they go. Enforcement is very very poor.

    Still, the owner is taking a big risk, if anything happened to the tenant in the shed they would be taken to the cleaners.


  • Options
    #30
    1874
    Registered Users Posts: 2,384 ✭✭✭1874


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    They don't even have to go to that much trouble. The council tell you weeks ahead they will be coming for a look. You just remove the bed and put it back 5 mins after they go. Enforcement is very very poor.

    Still, the owner is taking a big risk, if anything happened to the tenant in the shed they would be taken to the cleaners.


    What do you mean anything?
    as in, can the owner get insurance? or is the structure safe?
    A structure could be safe but not compliant imo,



    This is why these kind of things should be formalised,
    It is like many things here, just ignore the reality, and everyone suffers the consequences.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,503 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    1874 wrote: »
    What do you mean anything?
    as in, can the owner get insurance? or is the structure safe?
    A structure could be safe but not compliant imo,



    This is why these kind of things should be formalised,
    It is like many things here, just ignore the reality, and everyone suffers the consequences.

    It won't be insured, it's uninsurable. If the tenant injures themselves the owner will be in a world of trouble.

    There is also like 0% chance that shed is compliant with fire safety regulations. We have seen before what can happen to places like that. Probably no access for the fire brigade anyway.

    Practically, for the tenant, it will not be insulated up to regs and will be expensive to heat. We should be cracking down on cowboy landlords, people deserve better than this.


Advertisement