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

Should log cabins be legal to live in??

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,995 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    There is a serious shortage of accommodation in some parts of the state and in places the rents are quite disproportionate to ordinary peoples earnings. We all know this.

    Part of the reason for this situation is the ever expanding raft of regulation and legislation surrounding construction. At some stage it's fair enough for people to step back and say they'd rather live in accommodation that doesn't meet all the standards but which is affordable. U values and carbon footprints mean little to people put to the pin of their collar to have a roof over their heads.

    This regulation and legislation is brought in to try and raise standards of accommodation which is fair enough but I'll guarantee that the people drafting these laws don't have to face the consequences of their decisions.

    So are you saying its should be acceptable for people to live in substandard living accomodation, because they cant afford to live in standard accommodation?

    I think if this is the case then you are seeing the problem incorrectly.

    The biggest reason we have a housing crisis, and a homelessness crisis, is because the government abdicated its responsibility to provide social housing 20 years ago in the Planning and development act 2000.

    They put this responsibility onto the shoulders of private developers as a condition of receiving planning permission. Of course, the government never considered that if the private development stopped, then obviously public housing stopped.

    The answer is very very simple.

    The government have to get back into the business of providing housing.
    How they do that, and how they distribute, is a matter for policy... but the path is obvious.


  • Options
    #63
    Bdjsjsjs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 82 ✭✭Bdjsjsjs


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    The biggest reason we have a housing crisis, and a homelessness crisis, is because the government abdicated its responsibility to provide social housing 20 years ago in the Planning and development act 2000.

    They put this responsibility onto the shoulders of private developers as a condition of receiving planning permission. Of course, the government never considered that if the private development stopped, then obviously public housing stopped.

    The answer is very very simple.

    The government have to get back into the business of providing housing.
    How they do that, and how they distribute, is a matter for policy... but the path of obvious.
    I don't want to get side tracked into a less interesting topic but this is misleading. Various govs/local authorities stopped building social housing as they couldn't afford to build social housing, just like Berlin, Munich, London, Hong Kong and many other big cities and countries where they are very similar crises.


  • Options
    #64
    scamalert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,739 ✭✭✭scamalert


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    So are you saying its should be acceptable for people to live in substandard living accomodation,


    thats a load of BS, log cabin like ones in Norway Sweden are in some cases more superior then hollow brick plaster crap houses one pays 300-400k here.


    its the regulations part that fcks with people who say would be well able to afford nice log house imported that run into trouble,
    to tick every box.


  • Options
    #65
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,995 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Bdjsjsjs wrote: »
    I don't want to get side tracked into a less interesting topic but this is misleading. Various govs/local authorities stopped building social housing as they couldn't afford to build social housing, just like Berlin, Munich, London, Hong Kong and many other big cities and countries where they are very similar crises.

    its not misleading, as its correct.

    but if you read carefully i said it was the 'biggest' reason.... i didnt say it was the only reason.

    Councils were still constructing plenty of social housing developments up to late 2005 as they had them in the pipeline pre 2000.
    The affordability question is clearly valid, but the main reason why councils couldnt afford to build after was because of a myriad of actions governments took to remove money from individual councils over the years, which forced them into other significant revenue raising measures such as 'planning development contributions' which.... as you can guess, also tanked after the crash....

    so the government had no social responsibility to build house, had no money to put towards a building program as were were in the grasp of the troika, and the local councils could not raise revenues themselves to fund local housing development, as the government had taken that power away in order to distribute council funds centrally.

    its also valid to say that it suits governments and local councils not to have to be landlords to social housing development because the costs involved in the maintenance, renovation and general day to day running...... but thats of no help in this crisis we find ourselves.

    anyway, thats probably all off topic... it still doesnt equate to accepting sub standard structures as dwellings.

    and to follow on from that, if someone wants to provide a dwelling structure for sale in this country, and to make profit from same, it is completely correct to demand they provide proof that the product they are selling meet the minimum standards that exist at the time.


  • Options
    #66
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,995 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    scamalert wrote: »
    thats a load of BS, log cabin like ones in Norway Sweden are in some cases more superior then hollow brick plaster crap houses one pays 300-400k here.

    its the regulations part that fcks with people who say would be well able to afford nice log house imported that run into trouble,
    to tick every box.

    so are you saying they dont comply with these regulations / standards... as they are unaffordable....

    so they dont meet these standards...
    so they arent hitting the required standard .....
    so they are under the standard..

    so they are .........

    sub standard

    QED


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,995 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    scamalert wrote: »
    Then hollow brick plaster crap houses one pays 300-400k here.
    .

    The sames standards are applicable if you are building in the back end of Leitrim, or if your building on Killiney hill.




    The influence of the minimum regulations on the affordability of final price of the unit is minimal, when considered against land costs, finishes, statutory fees, profit margins etc


  • Options
    #68
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,140 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    lalababa wrote: »
    Does anybody know how to make the walls of a log cabin meet current building regulations?? How thick, what wood, moisture content, treated with what.. etc.?
    Bdjsjsjs wrote: »
    You claimed that the following specs would be needed to meet
    It isn't correct.

    I appreciate that you made a crude list for someone probably considering a buying a garden shed for a home. But it is just that, a crude list and needless to say, that many Irish houses today meeting the regs don't have such specs you list, as you would know. I am not trolling, I am fact checking and defending excellent traditional construction methods.

    I claimed nothing. You are the one making claims. The question above asked for for a wall build-up that complies with Irish regs? I gave you one.

    So if your not a troll and actually know why your talking about prove it. Please confirm what wall build-up, ‘you’ believe complies with current building regs?


  • Options
    #69
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    So are you saying its should be acceptable for people to live in substandard living accomodation, because they cant afford to live in standard accommodation?
    ........

    The government have to get back into the business of providing housing.
    How they do that, and how they distribute, is a matter for policy... but the path is obvious.


    Which would you rather do? Live in 'sub standard' accommodation at a reasonable rent and/or with the possibility to buy? Or freeze on the streets and/or pay large proportions of your income on rent to landlords?

    This 'sub standard' accommodation may well be better in many instances that what previous generations of us grew up in. Draughty, damp houses with heating in one living room, frost on the inside of windows when you woke in the morning etc.

    As for the government having to get back into the business of providing housing: the heyday of this was back in 1950s, 60s, 70s. But you look at much of that housing - it was functional but very basic in terms of construction. They couldn't be built now as they'd fall way below modern regulations. And yet, they provided accommodation for citizens.

    Regulations and standards are all very well when ordinary people can afford them. But when people either can't get housing and/or are paying extortionate rents or prices, then regulations and standards have to change to meet the needs of the citizen. Otherwise they are ignored.


  • Options
    #70
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,995 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    Which would you rather do? Live in 'sub standard' accommodation at a reasonable rent and/or with the possibility to buy? Or freeze on the streets and/or pay large proportions of your income on rent to landlords?

    This 'sub standard' accommodation may well be better in many instances that what previous generations of us grew up in. Draughty, damp houses with heating in one living room, frost on the inside of windows when you woke in the morning etc.

    As for the government having to get back into the business of providing housing: the heyday of this was back in 1950s, 60s, 70s. But you look at much of that housing - it was functional but very basic in terms of construction. They couldn't be built now as they'd fall way below modern regulations. And yet, they provided accommodation for citizens.

    Regulations and standards are all very well when ordinary people can afford them. But when people either can't get housing and/or are paying extortionate rents or prices, then regulations and standards have to change to meet the needs of the citizen. Otherwise they are ignored.

    the government always constructed in accordance with the laws at the time... remember the building regulations didnt come in until 1991, but even before that areas like Dublin had by-laws which had to be complied with. Every revision of the regulations since has had to be included in social housing projects...

    The affordability question is a very relevant question, as there are certain areas in the country which are simply out of reach for the majority of regular working people.... however i would seriously argue that the building regulations have a very minimal impact in this.

    The buildings in the 50s 60s etc were poorly constructed from an energy efficiency point of view... because they did not foresee the time of a fuel crisis, nor foresee a crisis in global warming and climate change due to carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

    again, as ive mentioned above, the same regulations are applicable in Ballygobackwards in Leitrim (sorry leitrim) as they are on Killiney Hill..... yet the price of housing units in these areas are VASTLY different. A brand new detached 1800 sq ft house could be purchased in leitrim for €250,000... whereas it would cost min twice that in D4.
    Is it the building regulations which cause that disparity?? of course not.

    of course, when it comes to those on the lower wages bands, and standard affordability comes into play, then the government have a responsibility to provide these affordables houses.... but as i said above already, then have abdicated this responsibility.

    so the answer is not the reduction of standards, which increases our carbon emissions, increases our carbon fines, and causes those inhabitants of the dwellings into fuel poverty and higher costs of living trying to heat the houses.

    the answer is to provide housing to those that need it, at the price they can afford.

    the government are simply not doing that.


  • Options
    #71
    Goldengirl
    Registered Users Posts: 12,015 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    Which would you rather do? Live in 'sub standard' accommodation at a reasonable rent and/or with the possibility to buy? Or freeze on the streets and/or pay large proportions of your income on rent to landlords?

    This 'sub standard' accommodation may well be better in many instances that what previous generations of us grew up in. Draughty, damp houses with heating in one living room, frost on the inside of windows when you woke in the morning etc.

    As for the government having to get back into the business of providing housing: the heyday of this was back in 1950s, 60s, 70s. But you look at much of that housing - it was functional but very basic in terms of construction. They couldn't be built now as they'd fall way below modern regulations. And yet, they provided accommodation for citizens.

    Regulations and standards are all very well when ordinary people can afford them. But when people either can't get housing and/or are paying extortionate rents or prices, then regulations and standards have to change to meet the needs of the citizen. Otherwise they are ignored.

    Yes, many of us remember growing up in houses all over the country like that . And when we fled , paying most of our pay packets to absentee landlords for one room bedsits ,and the rest trying to keep warm and well amidst the damp.
    I think I would like to forget that particular memory, thank you!
    Our current regulations while onerous will ensure that we don't return to that brand of housing stock.
    Many of us that can, dig deep and take on more debt to extend our homes to accomodate our now adult children . And nobody wants this housing crisis to continue.
    But relaxing regulations so people can live in mobile homes or glorified garden sheds, as has been discussed here, is not the answer. These will no doubt become the substandard rented accomodation of the future if allowed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    the government always constructed in accordance with the laws at the time... remember the building regulations didnt come in until 1991, but even before that areas like Dublin had by-laws which had to be complied with. Every revision of the regulations since has had to be included in social housing projects... ....

    so the answer is not the reduction of standards, which increases our carbon emissions, increases our carbon fines, and causes those inhabitants of the dwellings into fuel poverty and higher costs of living trying to heat the houses.

    the answer is to provide housing to those that need it, at the price they can afford.

    the government are simply not doing that.

    I understand entirely the points you are making, however I suspect that you (and policy makers) are likely making them from a similar position to myself - we have a house, it's paid for. So no rent and either small or no mortgage. If we were in the position of say our young adult children trying to find and then afford accommodation, I think we'd all have a different perspective.

    I can't see how the local authorities can engage at all now in the type of LA housing that was built a few decades ago. They just don't have the staff, skills or funding to do this - you'd need to have 30+ new building agencies each with a raft of specialist staff plus building staff on the ground. It's just not going to happen at that level.

    I'm always of the opinion that part of the solution is to enable people to help themselves. If that means putting a mobile home or whatever in their 'back garden' for some of their extended family to live in, isn't that better than telling them to join the long queues to view rent or purchase properties.

    As regards carbon footprints, I suspect that our carbon footprint growing up in the 60s & 70s, despite living in colder, draughtier houses was substantially less that modern demands. Where we heated one room and wore coats indoors in other rooms if needed - nowadays people expect to wear a T shirt in the middle of winter. Where we cycled, people now want to drive or get a bus or tram.


  • Options
    #73
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,009 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    II'm always of the opinion that part of the solution is to enable people to help themselves. If that means putting a mobile home or whatever in their 'back garden' for some of their extended family to live in
    If that happens the consequence will be that in a decade or so's time we'll have hundreds of thousands of people living in mobile homes.

    And then what? How do you unring that bell?


  • Options
    #74
    Bdjsjsjs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 82 ✭✭Bdjsjsjs


    Lumen wrote: »
    If that happens the consequence will be that in a decade or so's time we'll have hundreds of thousands of people living in mobile homes.

    And then what? How do you unring that bell?
    Has this happened in Tokyo's famous deregulated housing market?


  • Options
    #75
    smelly sock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,820 ✭✭✭smelly sock


    https://www.daft.ie/meath/houses-for-sale/bettystown/the-log-cabin-113-eastham-park-eastham-road-bettystown-meath-1886977/

    Interesting.


  • Options
    #76
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,995 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    smelly sock wrote: »
    https://www.daft.ie/meath/houses-for-sale/bettystown/the-log-cabin-113-eastham-park-eastham-road-bettystown-meath-1886977/

    Interesting.

    very.

    a cabin for sale in a caravan park..... for €170,000

    some price gouging there !!1


  • Options
    #77
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    smelly sock wrote: »
    https://www.daft.ie/meath/houses-for-sale/bettystown/the-log-cabin-113-eastham-park-eastham-road-bettystown-meath-1886977/

    Interesting.

    Just 74m2 and looks like it's well glazed. If it's got some roof insulation in it, it could be quite cheap to heat. Require a lot less carbon than many's the small mansion built around the country this past few years.

    As for being a caravan park, if people are happy to live close by each other, no harm. Higher density, what's not to like?


  • Options
    #78
    smelly sock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,820 ✭✭✭smelly sock


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    Just 74m2 and looks like it's well glazed. If it's got some roof insulation in it, it could be quite cheap to heat. Require a lot less carbon than many's the small mansion built around the country this past few years.

    As for being a caravan park, if people are happy to live close by each other, no harm. Higher density, what's not to like?

    An RV park!!

    Its been up a while anyway so you would imagine it might go cheaper.


  • Options
    #79
    lalababa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,726 ✭✭✭lalababa


    How thick would the log need to be to meet (or prehaps exceed!) current building regulations part b,c,d,e,& er L? As we have already established that some thickness of log would probably easily meet part a.


  • Options
    #80
    lalababa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,726 ✭✭✭lalababa


    Also, what thickness of a cob wall would meet parts c,d,e,f, and er L? Assuming that part a is already met.
    1m ?


  • Options
    #81
    BorneTobyWilde
    Registered Users Posts: 35,634 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde


    -snip-

    I like this. I don't get how they can sell them if no one can use them.

    I have ample space for one of these in a massive back garden, would be 400 ft from house, so I can't buy one and put in on my property?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,995 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    lalababa wrote: »
    How thick would the log need to be to meet (or prehaps exceed!) current building regulations part b,c,d,e,& er L? As we have already established that some thickness of log would probably easily meet part a.

    Tell us the thermal conductivity of the timber and I'll give you a good idea of the thinckness needed to get a u value of let's say, 0.15.

    While you at that, can you find the certification of the product in accordance with the following :

    The Construction Products Regulation
    (CPR) (Regulation (EU) No. 305/2011), as
    referred to in D3 (a) and (b) lays down
    conditions for the placing or making available on the EU market of construction products by establishing harmonised rules on how to express the performance of construction products in relation to their essential characteristic and on the use of CE Marking on those products.

    That would be a small starting point towards determination of suitability.... There are loads other standards to be met after this.


  • Options
    #83
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,995 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    I had a quick look.

    Using a soft wood with a thermal conductivity of 0.12 w/mk, you'd need 800mm thick walls to reach a u value of 0.15 w/m2k


  • Options
    #84
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,221 ✭✭✭pablo128


    BorneTobyWilde wrote: »
    snip

    I like this. I don't get how they can sell them if no one can use them.

    I have ample space for one of these in a massive back garden, would be 400 ft from house, so I can't buy one and put in on my property?

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


  • Options
    #85
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,878 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    smelly sock wrote:
    Are canal boats legal to live in? Are caravans and mobiles legal to live in?

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

    Log cabins definitely require planning permission. You can get planning permission for the log cabin as a shed, office or playroom but so far I don't believe anyone has gotten planning permission for living accommodation in a log cabin without an extra 30 or 40k to bring it up to code. Most attic conversions don't have planning to use as a bedroom. This does not stop people using them as a bedroom.

    A friend has a log cabin out his garden and has been renting it out as an apartment for the last 10 years. Every single tenant has raved about the comfort level of the cabin. Easy to heat etc. It's been a great success for my friend as its paid for itself several times over in the 10 years. I wonder what happens if there is a fire though. Obviously he can't have insurance if he doesn't have planning. What if someone dies or seriously injured? He could lose his own home if sued.


  • Options
    #86
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    so you see these ads all the time and no doubt they are being sold and bought for habitation (regs be damned) but saying that they can sell these things for 20-30k for a 1 bed, if you were to build a 'cabin' (logs/ timber frame/ whatever) what cost could you realistically produce one for that would meet regulations (roughly)


  • Options
    #87
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,140 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    BorneTobyWilde wrote: »
    -snip-

    I like this. I don't get how they can sell them if no one can use them.

    I have ample space for one of these in a massive back garden, would be 400 ft from house, so I can't buy one and put in on my property?

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/si/600/made/en/print#sched2
    The above can be carried out without planning. What you describe above, does not fall under the exempted development act


  • Options
    #88
    lalababa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,726 ✭✭✭lalababa


    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?


  • Options
    #89
    lalababa
    Registered Users Posts: 1,726 ✭✭✭lalababa


    I looked up cob there and got 600mm cob with u value of 0.65, so to get a u-value of under 0.21 the cob wall would want to be 5ft 11in, or 1.8m thick.


  • Options
    #90
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,995 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    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?

    No, you're not getting anywhere at all.

    Its very simple. If you want to use a product in a certain manner, it must be tested and certified for that use.

    It costs A LOT of money to get products tested and certified, and you cannot do that DIY over an Internet forum.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,995 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    0.21 doesn't comply with part L.

    That's a back stop u value that you cannot have worse than, but in general to reach minimum compliance you have to far exceed that back stop.


Advertisement