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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Should log cabins be legal to live in??

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,008 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    I'm guessing both of the above aren't permanent structures. The both move so planning regulations most likely don't apply.

    Permanent structure is irrelevant.

    Can't live in a caravan without planning permission. Or a tent, for that matter.

    I think you might get away with a bivvy bag, but not an awning. Awnings are specifically not exempted.


  • Options
    #93
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,875 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Lumen wrote:
    Can't live in a caravan without planning permission. Or a tent, for that matter.

    I didn't know that :)


  • Options
    #94
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,436 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    lalababa wrote: »
    So 800mm of softwood gives a u-value of 0.15.
    Many thanks.
    What is the minimum U-value compliant with Irish building reg.s.I saw somewhere 0.21?
    Anyways let's say 600mm to achieve u value of less than 0.21, so that would comply with part L. And seeing as we have established compliance with part A already we are left with parts b,c,d,e. See we're getting places.
    Now for part B...like what's that all about?

    LOL
    getting nowhere.
    0.21 does not meet the current building regulations.

    Fire safety means a system that protects the structure from fire and also limits fire spread through surface linings.
    You need a certified fire test on a system that complies from one of the very few fire test houses in Europe.

    No manufacture has a system on sale at the moment, so you can see now you’d need to start from the very beginning with a lot of R&D and money. Then you have to ask yourself why none of the big boys have already done it such as British Gypsum/Saint Gobain or any other manufacturer of fire rated plaster boards or similar.


  • Options
    #95
    BorneTobyWilde
    Registered Users Posts: 35,625 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde


    pablo128 wrote: »
    If you have planning permission and it meets building regs, well then yes you can.


    And would planning be hard to obtain? What issue could there be. It's just a small log cabin.
    Surely the buildings regs is down to the seller? As I said how can they sell them if they're not up to scratch.


  • Options
    #96
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,436 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    BorneTobyWilde wrote: »
    And would planning be hard to obtain? What issue could there be. It's just a small log cabin.
    Surely the buildings regs is down to the seller? As I said how can they sell them if they're not up to scratch.

    As a garden room, shed, store, hobby room, planning will be no problem.
    As an additional living unit, I can say with 99.999% certainty you won’t get planning.

    Compliance with building regs and planning regs are on the home owner, the sellers simply turn up, erect and walk away.

    I’ve seen it happen many times and I’ve seen enforcement actions on many sites and the home owners crying because the seller didn’t tell them.

    I’ve seen schools and Creche’s on the wrong side of these things too!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,987 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    BorneTobyWilde wrote: »
    And would planning be hard to obtain? What issue could there be. It's just a small log cabin.
    Surely the buildings regs is down to the seller? As I said how can they sell them if they're not up to scratch.

    We're going round in circles here.

    They are sold as garden sheds!!!!!

    Read the whole thread please.


  • Options
    #98
    lalababa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,726 ✭✭✭lalababa


    I assume construction timber in a wood frame has a fire cert??
    Otherwise they can't be built.


  • Options
    #99
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,987 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    lalababa wrote: »
    I assume construction timber in a wood frame has a fire cert??
    Otherwise they can't be built.

    assumptions??

    again, they are sold as garden sheds... so obviously standards for garden sheds are a hell of a lot less than are required for habitable dwellings.

    Lots of posters here are caught up in the construction, and not considering the actual use.
    Its the USE which determines the standards..... so if joe bloggs wants to put one of these out into his back garden and use it as a gym, or art studio etc then the standards the building has to reach are very limited compared to josephine bloggs who wants to put one of these in her back garden and move her elderly parents out in it to live....... or her mid twenties daughter, beau and grandchild.

    Until posters grasp the differences between these uses, we will just be going round in circles.

    garden sheds = very basic and extremely limited standards

    independent living unit = full rigours of all the myriad of aspects of all the building regs

    the sellers of these do not care one jot how you are to use the product, because they know they will not leave themselves open to any legal action by being caught saying they are something they are not.


  • Options
    #100
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    Lumen wrote: »
    Permanent structure is irrelevant.

    Can't live in a caravan without planning permission. Or a tent, for that matter.

    I think you might get away with a bivvy bag, but not an awning. Awnings are specifically not exempted.

    Yeah, but how many people are living up and down the country in caravans and mobile homes... if the law is an ass, people treat it as such.


  • Options
    #101
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,436 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    lalababa wrote: »
    I assume construction timber in a wood frame has a fire cert??
    Otherwise they can't be built.

    Construction timber, like floor joists, roof rafters and vertical timber frame houses are CE marked, comply with IS440 which makes them acceptable in the construction industry.

    Log cabins cannot achieve this standard.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,436 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    Yeah, but how many people are living up and down the country in caravans and mobile homes... if the law is an ass, people treat it as such.

    How many people break the speed limit every day?
    Just because you haven’t been caught today, doesn’t mean you won’t be caught tomorrow if you continue with the illegal activity.


  • Options
    #103
    Bdjsjsjs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 82 ✭✭Bdjsjsjs


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    Yeah, but how many people are living up and down the country in caravans and mobile homes... if the law is an ass, people treat it as such.

    Many regulations are designed around lobby interests and block and prefab construction is a big lobby in Ireland even though they aren't always a superior method. Usually they are superior for one thing, and that is profit. While alternative and traditional methods which are often far greener are neglected.


  • Options
    #104
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    kceire wrote: »
    How many people break the speed limit every day?
    Just because you haven’t been caught today, doesn’t mean you won’t be caught tomorrow if you continue with the illegal activity.

    I travel around Ireland a bit, I see people here & there living in mobile homes and caravans. We tend to associate this with travelers but there'd also be other people in places who just fell through the cracks a bit here & there.

    Now are you telling me that the relevant local authority is just going to go along and turf these people out on the side of the road? They may try and find some sort of suitable social housing for them but often these people wouldn't be high on any priority list and they also may be happier where they are.

    And in truth, many of these people live a lot more lightly on the land in terms of their carbon footprint than you or I.


  • Options
    #105
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,436 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    I travel around Ireland a bit, I see people here & there living in mobile homes and caravans. We tend to associate this with travelers but there'd also be other people in places who just fell through the cracks a bit here & there.

    Now are you telling me that the relevant local authority is just going to go along and turf these people out on the side of the road? They may try and find some sort of suitable social housing for them but often these people wouldn't be high on any priority list and they also may be happier where they are.

    And in truth, many of these people live a lot more lightly on the land in terms of their carbon footprint than you or I.

    Still illegal.


  • Options
    #106
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    kceire wrote: »
    Still illegal.

    With respect, that's not a very helpful answer. The title of the thread says 'Should log cabins be legal to live in??' So just saying this type of accommodation is illegal doesn't really address the question?

    Ideally we'd aspire to affordable and suitably located housing with BER A ratings and so on. That's not the real world though we live in and people need shelter. So shouldn't the law meet the needs of the citizens in a practical way.

    Banning 'bedsits' was the classic example of well motivated legislation that had the effect of removing a particular type of accommodation solution without providing an affordable alternative. That's poor policy & bad law.


  • Options
    #107
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,436 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    With respect, that's not a very helpful answer. The title of the thread says 'Should log cabins be legal to live in??' So just saying this type of accommodation is illegal doesn't really address the question?

    Ideally we'd aspire to affordable and suitably located housing with BER A ratings and so on. That's not the real world though we live in and people need shelter. So shouldn't the law meet the needs of the citizens in a practical way.

    Banning 'bedsits' was the classic example of well motivated legislation that had the effect of removing a particular type of accommodation solution without providing an affordable alternative. That's poor policy & bad law.

    With respect, if you read my earlier posts, i've already stated that they shouldn't be made legal in post No. 21 on the 12th October. So you can see the circles we are going around in.

    BarryD2 wrote: »

    Banning 'bedsits' was the classic example of well motivated legislation that had the effect of removing a particular type of accommodation solution without providing an affordable alternative. That's poor policy & bad law.

    The only thing i'll say on this is that I was in many, many bedsits with the Fire Brigade and the Gardaí, and I wouldn't let a dog live in 99% of the bedsits we encountered.

    I don't want to get dragged into the emotional side of things here, but we don't need a 2 tier, or 3 tier of housing standards.


  • Options
    #108
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,140 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    Yeah, but how many people are living up and down the country in caravans and mobile homes... if the law is an ass, people treat it as such.
    BarryD2 wrote: »
    I travel around Ireland a bit, I see people here & there living in mobile homes and caravans. We tend to associate this with travelers but there'd also be other people in places who just fell through the cracks a bit here & there.

    Now are you telling me that the relevant local authority is just going to go along and turf these people out on the side of the road? They may try and find some sort of suitable social housing for them but often these people wouldn't be high on any priority list and they also may be happier where they are.

    And in truth, many of these people live a lot more lightly on the land in terms of their carbon footprint than you or I.
    BarryD2 wrote: »
    With respect, that's not a very helpful answer. The title of the thread says 'Should log cabins be legal to live in??' So just saying this type of accommodation is illegal doesn't really address the question?

    Ideally we'd aspire to affordable and suitably located housing with BER A ratings and so on. That's not the real world though we live in and people need shelter. So shouldn't the law meet the needs of the citizens in a practical way.

    Banning 'bedsits' was the classic example of well motivated legislation that had the effect of removing a particular type of accommodation solution without providing an affordable alternative. That's poor policy & bad law.


    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111592584&postcount=57

    This is the C&P forum, not the law forum, we obey the law here.

    You were already asked to read the forum charter

    Any more discussion regarding the law will require a forum ban

    Please don’t respond to this on thread, use the PM function if required


  • Options
    #109
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,987 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    BarryD2 wrote: »

    Now are you telling me that the relevant local authority is just going to go along and turf these people out on the side of the road?

    no, of course not.

    the local authority allow them to apply for retention planning permission, which is a facility to regularise permission.

    Those in the mobile homes then have to show they can meet the same planning standards as everyone else in the country.


  • Options
    #110
    Bdjsjsjs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 82 ✭✭Bdjsjsjs


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    no, of course not.

    the local authority allow them to apply for retention planning permission, which is a facility to regularise permission.

    Those in the mobile homes then have to show they can meet the same planning standards as everyone else in the country.
    A bit Incredible lol


  • Options
    #111
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,987 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Bdjsjsjs wrote: »
    A bit Incredible lol

    More asinine contributions by you....


    Im still waiting on the proof I asked for six days ago after you wild assertion that log cabins are:
    "more airtight, secure and fire proof than a lot of the Irish housing stock"

    A this stage your just coming across as a shill for one of those companies.

    Its literally time for you to sh!t or get off the pot


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Bdjsjsjs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 82 ✭✭Bdjsjsjs


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    More asinine contributions by you....


    Im still waiting on the proof I asked for six days ago after you wild assertion that log cabins are:
    "more airtight, secure and fire proof than a lot of the Irish housing stock"

    A this stage your just coming across as a shill for one of those companies.

    Its literally time for you to sh!t or get off the pot
    How is it asinine to point out that the rules are clearly not enforced. You can achieve good values in all of the qualities I mentioned whether it's mud, straw or reinforced concrete home. The issue is how they are used not the raw material. Hence we have A2 rated homes up and down the country that cost a fortune to heat.


  • Options
    #113
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,987 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Bdjsjsjs wrote: »
    How is it asinine to point out that the rules are clearly not enforced. You can achieve good values in all of the qualities I mentioned whether it's mud, straw or reinforced concrete home. The issue is how they are used not the raw material. Hence we have A2 rated homes up and down the country that cost a fortune to heat.

    More hyperbole.

    Do you actually have anything of note to contribute?? Or is it all bar stool chatter?


  • Options
    #114
    Bdjsjsjs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 82 ✭✭Bdjsjsjs


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    More hyperbole.

    Do you actually have anything of note to contribute?? Or is it all bar stool chatter?
    Not hyperbole. I lived in such a house.


  • Options
    #115
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    kceire wrote: »
    I don't want to get dragged into the emotional side of things here, but we don't need a 2 tier, or 3 tier of housing standards.

    Probably the wrong forum to be discussing such matters in, as it's more concerned with general housing policy than points regarding construction & planning. I'm still at a loss though to understand practical solutions for Irish people who can't purchase or rent accommodation that has to meet increasingly stringent and costly regulations. And yes, I do have an interest in the matter, like many other parents of young adult children trying to live independently in a reality of exorbitant rents.


  • Options
    #116
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,987 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Bdjsjsjs wrote: »
    Not hyperbole. I lived in such a house.

    stunning contribution !!!!

    sure that just completely blows away all requirement for building regulations and standards because you say you lived in a house that cost a fortune to heat...

    the correlation between the two is completely obvious. why bother with any details al all such as when the house was built, what its heating system was, what its control system was, what its ventilation system was, whats its air tightness test result was, what its construction methods were, what the heat demand was......

    sure why would those details would be of any use at all, when you can just say "i lived in a house, therefore building regulations are crap and everyone should be allowed live in mud huts if they want"

    your contribution to this thread is getting more inconsequential the more you post.


  • Options
    #117
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,987 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    Probably the wrong forum to be discussing such matters in, as it's more concerned with general housing policy than points regarding construction & planning. I'm still at a loss though to understand practical solutions for Irish people who can't purchase or rent accommodation that has to meet increasingly stringent and costly regulations. And yes, I do have an interest in the matter, like many other parents of young adult children trying to live independently in a reality of exorbitant rents.

    Barry, im a father of 5 kids... the eldest being 25 so i am acutely aware of the situation you are describing above.

    the point i would make is you seem to be blaming the regulations for the level of cost of new builds and for the high rents being charged.

    im sorry but that is simply wrong.

    the biggest impact on the cost of a house is the cost of the site its sitting on.

    the second biggest cost is the cost of the materials to get it to stand up properly ie foundation walls roofs.

    the third biggest cost involved in the building of a new house is VAT and other taxes imposed by the government and local authoritites.

    in my opinion, the increased costs of construction due to increased building regulations since , lets say, 2005, would be in the region of about 7 - 8k in build costs per 3 bed unit, taking inflation into account. Thats allowing for the increase in heating controls, renewable requirement and air tightness strategy.

    so lets say that the build cost for a standard 3 bed semi in abbotstown is €100,000. lets say that 7.5k of that is down to increased regulation over the last 15 years...
    so thats 7.5% of build costs.

    However lets say that 3 bed semi is sitting on a site which cost the developer 100k per unit.

    lets say taxes and charges are €50k to the government
    and lets say the developers proift is €50k
    And lets say that end sale price of the unit is €300,000....

    i would argue all these numbers are not an unreasonable reflection of reality.

    that means in reality the increased cost of the regulations over the last 15 years is approx 2.5% of the sale price (7.5/300)

    subtract off that 2.5% the lower running costs to the end user compared to 2005 regs. subtract off that again the carbon fines we are being hit with from europe..
    that 2.5% increase is soon whittled down to nothing.

    its not the building regulations which causes the unaffordability of rents and house prices.
    its governments who are hamstrung from building affordable homes.
    its government who are unwilling to tackle the issue of land hording and exorbitant land values, leading to ridiculous house prices.
    its government who are unwilling to look at meaningful tax reliefs / exemptions for first time buyers / builders.
    its government who are unwilling to tackle housing issue such as the gentrification of our bigger cities at the detriment of its established inhabitants.

    its unbelievable in a time when we have such low mortgage rates that more and more ordinary working people find themselves unable to afford to live in the areas they grew up in, and where they are working in... but that government fault... not the fault of the standards we build with.


  • Options
    #118
    smelly sock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,820 ✭✭✭smelly sock


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    Barry, im a father of 5 kids... the eldest being 25 so i am acutely aware of the situation you are describing above.

    the point i would make is you seem to be blaming the regulations for the level of cost of new builds and for the high rents being charged.

    im sorry but that is simply wrong.

    the biggest impact on the cost of a house is the cost of the site its sitting on.

    the second biggest cost is the cost of the materials to get it to stand up properly ie foundation walls roofs.

    the third biggest cost involved in the building of a new house is VAT and other taxes imposed by the government and local authoritites.

    in my opinion, the increased costs of construction due to increased building regulations since , lets say, 2005, would be in the region of about 7 - 8k in build costs per 3 bed unit, taking inflation into account. Thats allowing for the increase in heating controls, renewable requirement and air tightness strategy.

    so lets say that the build cost for a standard 3 bed semi in abbotstown is €100,000. lets say that 7.5k of that is down to increased regulation over the last 15 years...
    so thats 7.5% of build costs.

    However lets say that 3 bed semi is sitting on a site which cost the developer 100k per unit.

    lets say taxes and charges are €50k to the government
    and lets say the developers proift is €50k
    And lets say that end sale price of the unit is €300,000....

    i would argue all these numbers are not an unreasonable reflection of reality.

    that means in reality the increased cost of the regulations over the last 15 years is approx 2.5% of the sale price (7.5/300)

    subtract off that 2.5% the lower running costs to the end user compared to 2005 regs. subtract off that again the carbon fines we are being hit with from europe..
    that 2.5% increase is soon whittled down to nothing.

    its not the building regulations which causes the unaffordability of rents and house prices.
    its governments who are hamstrung from building affordable homes.
    its government who are unwilling to tackle the issue of land hording and exorbitant land values, leading to ridiculous house prices.
    its government who are unwilling to look at meaningful tax reliefs / exemptions for first time buyers / builders.
    its government who are unwilling to tackle housing issue such as the gentrification of our bigger cities at the detriment of its established inhabitants.

    its unbelievable in a time when we have such low mortgage rates that more and more ordinary working people find themselves unable to afford to live in the areas they grew up in, and where they are working in... but that government fault... not the fault of the standards we build with.


    Thanks for the info. It certainly clarifies some things.

    Are you saying that the developers net profit is 50k per unit? Taking into account labour costs etc? That's what they bank?

    Also who decides on building regs? Do they CIF and other lobbies / interest groups have input in them?


  • Options
    #119
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,987 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    smelly sock wrote: »
    Are you saying that the developers net profit is 50k per unit? Taking into account labour costs etc? That's what they bank?

    not necessarily...
    obviously i dont know exact profit margins of property developers, but id expect a range of some where around 15% would be reasonable.

    50k on a 300k sale would equate to 16.66%

    but take from that administration costs in the developers office, advertising, financing costs etc.... means the developer doesn't actually pocket that percentage, but rather runs their business from a large chunk of it too.
    smelly sock wrote: »
    Also who decides on building regs? Do they CIF and other lobbies / interest groups have input in them?

    There is a building regulation advisory board which contains members from practically all aspects of the built environment.


    https://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/building-standards/building-regulations-advisory-body/brab

    you can see the list of people who are on it here.... and see what body they are associated with.


  • Options
    #120
    Bdjsjsjs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 82 ✭✭Bdjsjsjs


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    stunning contribution !!!!

    sure that just completely blows away all requirement for building regulations and standards because you say you lived in a house that cost a fortune to heat...

    the correlation between the two is completely obvious. why bother with any details al all such as when the house was built, what its heating system was, what its control system was, what its ventilation system was, whats its air tightness test result was, what its construction methods were, what the heat demand was......

    sure why would those details would be of any use at all, when you can just say "i lived in a house, therefore building regulations are crap and everyone should be allowed live in mud huts if they want"

    your contribution to this thread is getting more inconsequential the more you post.
    If you are going to rudely go after someone you might as well attack someone for what they communicate not what you think think they are communicating.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users Posts: 8,162 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    whats the craic with building regs and the age of a house? like if there was a derelict cottage for sale, (say built before any regulations came in) roof and windows still intact (or not, would it make a difference?) what standards would it need to meet to be 'legal' to live in?


Advertisement