Room to Improve (v2)

Would you live in a house without a handrail on the stairs, or at those steps down to the living area? That is what building regulations are for. If that relatively elderly relative at the end of the shop slipped (no access to the toilet for example, after a drink or two, without encountering those steps) and had a bad accident what would you think?

Especially if you paid 700k for the house? Do you not think that considering Dermot and co. are highly paid to do a house renovation programme at prime time on TV, would it be too much to expect that they comply with building regs, full planning permission, grant conditions etc? Especially if the project "got" (according to the q.s. ) 99k of grants too?

Thanks for that. Certainly in the auctioneers photos of the house the year before renovation / new build, the condition of the house then seemed fine. As good if not better than the average house in Ireland.

I do not think it right they "got" the Derelict house grant, as the Q.S. claimed. RTE has some serious questions to answer.

I have as much credibility as you, if not more, thank you very much. The part you highlighted (in bold) does not change the fact a handrail is required, as explained to you in the main part of the regs, the bit I quoted. There was no handrail "capable of being readily gripped by hand and safely used" on the stairs.

Yes, steps anywhere can be tripped on, but three steps down when you are not expecting them - when you are going from the main entrance / toilet to the dining / living area for example - and would no doubt your eye caught admiring the view out the window to the Rock of Cashel or whatever - is an accident waiting to happen. Nothing even on the wall like a handrail to indicate there may be steps there.

Nothing strange at all about it.

Over the years I have had countless meetings with ministers, ministers of state, senior civil servants ,dept staff at all levels etc.

Also at local authority level, CEO and all down the line.

These kind of meetings happen all the time.

There’s a saying that comes to mind while reading some of these posts “Never argue with an idiot, they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience”

No, not at all, I never alleged anything. I just remarked of the unusual phrase " I have had meetings with ministers, senior civil servants etc down the line...nothing unusual" before, or words to that effect, and i think it was the late great Ben Dunne who uttered those words.

This is not accurate. You’re referring to a document that is one way, almost definitely the most common way, of complying with the Building Regulations. There are other ways that you can comply with the Regs.

The regs say, for example "Stairs should have a handrail on at least one side if it is 1000 mm wide or less. It should have a handrail on both sides if it is wider. The top surface of the handrail should be between 900 mm and 1000 mm measured vertically above the pitch line, and between 900 mm and 1100 mm above the landing, Handrails should give firm support. A handrail may form the top of the guarding if the height is suitable (refer to Diagram 6). The handrail should be so constructed and fitted as to be capable of being readily gripped by hand and safely used. Handrails may not be necessary beside the two bottom steps of private stairs."

What other ways can you comply with the regs? We are all ears.

And it fully fulfilled that remit - i.e. highlighting what grants are available.

There is a 'mess' created by a mix of conspiracy fantasising and derision based on jealousy/begrudgery and not a single shred of any proof yet that anything untoward went on here.

If the average architect rang up the Department with a query about a grant, they'd be told to read the documents online or contact the local authority. There's no way that the average architect would be invited to a meeting with the Minister's advisor and officials.

So we are agreed then that when DB said there was no big deal about the meeting he was correct ?

He may or may not be relying on personal contacts by the way, though as you say they can be helpful.

At the end of the day if you have your preparation done properly and the person across the table is well briefed a successful outcome is more likely.

It's how they get things done even though they don't always get done as smoothly as we'd like.

I don't know exactly why they met with DB but it was possibly because they considered it beneficial to their interests.

Like I said they hold meetings with people all the time for all sorts of purposes.

They got no information out there, except a vague sense that the rules about derelict grants don't seem to apply. Was this what they were trying to get out?

Departments have communications teams, Ministers have communications advisors, government has gov.ie website.

If they want to 'get information out there', they went about it ass-about-face.

'Celebs' should not be getting special treatment by government departments.

The system is there to be worked.

What were you or I doing going to meetings only looking for some sort of result.

If we weren't we'd be better off to stay in the bar in Buswells.

Unfortunately a very frustrating episode for my partner and I, as we are in a similar situation to this couple (similar age bungalow, zero insulation, requirement to replumb and rewire, replace all floors due to rot). We have had to massively restrict any form of renovation and opening up of spaces as just the retrofit is exorbitantly high. Even this we have had to cut back due to budget and in doing so we dont qualify for many of the SEAI grant (couple of hundred euro for heating controls).

Given this we found it so frustrating when the woman kept adding and adding and adding to the budget with additional items, as if there was an never flowing amount of money. Really felt heart breaking that we are unable to do the basic retrofit and others are adding on patios and extra bedrooms on a whim.