Room to Improve (v2)

The issue is not that there was a meeting with the minister , the issue is what was discussed?

And in the two episodes shown so far this year, the more grants the couples discovered they could get, the fancier and more expensive the extension got. And so it transpired: the couples ended up with a bigger / fancier Dermot Bannon glass box extension and a much bigger budget than originally envisaged.

Some would say what you need is an RTE talent or someone in the know to "work the system" so you need not comply with full planning permission, building regulations or the conditions of the grant for a "Vacant" and "Derelict" house grant.

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at but if you think DB was lobbying for change in regs. he'd need to make a lobbying return.

You can check here -

Not only that, but the Irish Independent said it was the TV producer who contacted the Minister's adviser, and got a private meeting. He did not just contact the department, he contacted the Minister's adviser.

To put it in context, In a report not long ago (2023) it was revealed that the average waiting time for a pre-planning meeting with a local council.is 141 days. That is almost 5 months.

And I know people who sought a meeting - not with a Ministers adviser but just with anyone in the local council, - and it took longer.

And not only that, but after a meeting between Dermot Bannon (and his Q.S. Ms Irwin ) and the Minister's adviser , you would expect the "Room to Improve" team to be - at the least - well briefed on grants.

The meeting, we are told, took place in Sept. 2022, so the "Room to Improve" team should have known all about the grants for the show 11 days ago?

Then in the Room to Improve just eleven days ago, we see Dermot telling the couple they would be entitled to the first time buyers grant, as well as the other grants - for the house they inherited. FFS, a 16 year old transition school kid could do better.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

Yes, he's a celeb. Professional architects don't generally have Noel Kelly as their agent.

There was absolutely no clarity in the show about how the grant works. If this was part of a communication initiative by the Department, the output was completely ham fisted.

It's up to those IN the system, the Ministers, the advisors, the officials, to make sure they're not being worked by outsiders.

I don't actually blame Bannon or the producers for asking for a meeting. I DO blame Ministers and advisers for doing a favour for a celeb.

Our architect informed us that it wouldnt apply as the house was in sufficient enough condition to not be considered derelict (which I would agree with as it is liveable, though FREEZING in the evening at moment) and also was not vacant for long enough prior to our purchase. Though given these episodes I will re-raise the potential grants available to us with the architect and QS to see if we can look to spend more with a view to save more (which I hate the concept of....)

Until we find out the exact purpose of the meeting it's hard to know if any favour was done.

In my experience public officials often make decisions that suit the interests of people they are meeting.

If they never did such meetings would never take place.

Obviously I would condemn any wrongdoing.

You sound like you are renovating a property similar to the couple on sunday nights RTI. I would definitely look into the grants further because if that couple got them then I think you should qualify aswell.

You have already been told the grants are not means tested. How 'well' the couple did is therefore moot.

There is no clarification needed from the couple, Bannon or RTE. They applied for and got the grants, therefore, unless you can prove differently they complied with the requirements.

If you can prove something, then the issue is with the granting body as it is up to them to make an assessment of all applications and ensure they comply.

Your 'suspicions' are not really relevant.

It has been explained many times on here now and it was stated on the show. If a major structure is condemned it can be deemed derelict.

Nobody said the criteria was going to be explained, it is an entertainment show about much more than grants. All that was said was it would promote the existence of several grants.

OK, this was explained too. The reality of modern life is that the Dept and somebody like Bannon working together to promote the grants (which have been slow to be taken up) was mutually beneficial. Nothing more sinister than that until we know different.

eh, because the RIAI don't have a prime time Sunday night TV show?

The statutory bodies tasked with ensuring compliance are happy that planning permission, building regs, grant conditions have been complied with. Your suspicions are just that until you can actually prove something.

So its ok to build without full planning permission but get retention 3 days before a programme is aired, it is ok to possibly live in a house and just pretend is was vacant for a few years (ask the neighbours?) and its ok to build stairs without a handrail while everyone else compiles with building regs and has a handrail?

And ok to knock most of a perfectly liveable in house without an independent expert / engineer signing off to condemn it?

Retention is a legal mechanism which exists to rectify non compliant works.

It does not follow that it is legal to build something non compliant whether knowingly or unknowingly doing so. It is absolutely illegal.

Retention may or may not be granted so there is alot of risk involved in going ahead without.

In the specific case of the works being exempt except for the conversion of an attic, within a roof that would otherwise be exempt, the risk is on the lower end.

I don't have enough info to comment on whether the ground floor proposal would actually be exempt but you would have to give the benefit of the doubt there.

Yes, retention is perfectly legal, but to be building something without proper planning permission, and get retention three days before it is aired on national tv, is not great practice. Much better to apply for planning permission normally, as people are told to do. After all, sometimes retention is refused, and people have to tear down the structure. Although some would say that is unlikely to happen, especially if you have had coffee and biccies in a specially requested meeting with the Minister's adviser ?

And as regards the independent expert who would be required to sign off on a condemned roof / end wall ( if indeed the whole roof had to be condemned ( rather that just bits repaired ) ....why is his or her name conspicuous by its absence from the list of suppliers on the Room to Improve website? Everyone else is there, even the person who done the BER. Now maybe there was one, and all is in order, but as many others have suggested the roof was almost certainly surveyed when the bungalow was sold @ €303,000 the previous year, and nothing wrong found ( or the couple would have mentioned it). Dermot did not notice anything wrong, or any dampness or leaks in his inspection of the main roof of the house when he first visited, or he would have shown it. So why was the sudden condemnation and destruction of the roof / end wall etc glossed over so quickly in the middle of the programme? It seems Dermot was more concerned with the colour of roof tiles for a new roof? All a bit very strange, as lots of others have commented, and it needs clarification.