As of 2016 (last census) Donegal has 64% detached houses, thats obviously not all one offs but couldn't find separate figure for those and it is indicative.
That compares to 42% for the state, 19% for fingal (lease dense of Dublin counties), Meath 52%. https://data.cso.ie/table/E1005
Ireland, and particular the country has a bit of an obsession with one off housing which really could do with reigning in.
So what is your question, were these houses built with an inspector present?
The answer is that the inspector takes a sample of the blocks and tests it for pyrite and mica, but that's only possible if an inspector was engaged on the build (given that the main reason for the inspector legislation was to prevent faulty blocks being used).
It doesn't sound like you know much about this on the technical side.
Yes, did those seeking redress engage an inspector (who is tasked with identifying defective blocks among other items) or did they sign a waiver.
I was there (passing at around 1:30) and there wasn't 10000 people there. The crowd was between the loop line bridge and down to the centre of the Customs House and really no further. That is a distance of 100m approx. The road outside the customs House, including paths is about 20m wide. That's 2000sqm It's simply not possible to fit 10000 in that space comfortably.
At an average of 1 to 2 persons per sqm you had 2500-4000 people there max.
The county council is the relevant body to regulate the quarries and the block suppliers who should have done this, not individuals. So the county council were negligent by not testing the blocks and the county council are a government body. So therefore the government were negligent in their duties.
The inspection system was brought in, in part, to identify defective blocks. You can't dismiss it as irrelevant to an issue with blocks if that was one of the main purposes of their job.
the blocks were sold with an NSAI CE mark and are certified. Why would a private builder engage an inspector to test blocks with a CE mark?
The county council are not a government body.
I'd love to know how many folk building houses have had a sample of blocks taken away to be tested? I'd say next to none. But it's easy to say it should have been done with the Mica houses to victimise the homeowners.
The quarries were supposedly operating under government regulations and meant to be producing blocks fit for purpose. There should not have been any reason to think they'd need tested.
When was the inspection system brought in?
Splitting hairs here, they are local government and governed by the local government act. All employees are public servants
You know the nsai doesn't test anything. It just checks that the process the manufacturer has stated that they produce the blocks to meets the standard.
For example say X standard requires a limit of a particular chemical. The approving body just makes sure, in an audit, that they have in their process a way of making sure said chemical is below the limit.
2014, as I already mentioned, to address the issue with defective blocks (pyrite was the case at the time).
If an owner signed the waiver instead of engaging an inspector, it effectively absolves the council of responsibility and put 100% of the risk on the person who signed the waiver.
This doesn't mean there shouldn't be redress, just that the council/taxpayer may not be the entity to blame in all cases.
I don't know how many homeowners/builders/self-builders signed the waiver, but it does change the facts of the situation somewhat if a high % skipped the inspectors.
Because it's part of the building regulations, with the person who signs the waiver accepting responsibility otherwise.
Except, after the pyrite scandal, inspectors were brought in (at cost to the builder) to identify these issues unless a waiver was signed.
So the vast majority of the mica houses were built pre 2014 so the inspector point is irrelevant in the Mica families
Pre 2014. Inspectors and waivers are irrelevant in this discussion
What's the %? What % didn't engage inspectors?
Should those post 2014 builds without inspectors get any redress? That's one way of getting the tax payer bill down.
I haven’t a clue about the %. But banging on about inspectors and waivers when the vast vast majority of these houses were built pre 2014 is helping no one.
these people built or bought houses in good faith that the materials they paid for were fit for purpose and ten years down the line they find out they weren’t is the facts here and they are paying a mortgage on a worthless property is heart breaking.
If you or your family were in one of these houses you would be changing your tune
Turn on the late late now and see the damage this is doing to your fellow countrymen and women
It's better to stick to facts in these cases rather than trying to pull on the heartstrings.
Its not splitting hairs. The government don't get involved in planning and local authority decisions (for the most part) for a good reason.
The government are clearly the only ones with the means to enact the full redress that is being demanded, but its disingenuous to claim it is the governments fault.
No problem.
facts are that inspectors and waivers have no place in this argument, majority of houses built pre 2014.
facts are the people paid for blocks that were not fit for purpose including the VAT on them.
what other facts are you looking for?
Local government fault then. Civil servants working for this government fault
What % are post 2014 and what % signed a waiver instead of engaging with the building inspector system.
As I have said before, I haven’t a clue.
would you have a problem with 100% redress for pre 2014 houses?
They got the graveyard slot on the late late lol
Maybe Ryan can do a fundraiser. 😆
But I thought you said RTE were ignoring them? Hardly ignoring them putting them on the late late at any time
So what exactly was this inspection system?
Who are the inspectors you refer to?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0b9a43cca122fb9538e56a7ad3e3fae2.svg)
