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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Should log cabins be legal to live in??

24

Comments

  • #52
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    Lumen wrote: »
    As far as I know, nobody was using logs for housing at that time, or since.

    People often lived in very rudimentary housing in rural Ireland - sod houses and the like. Even stone built structures with thatch roofs were often very basic as is well documented in written 19thC descriptions. On the plus side, this sort of accommodation was manageable for local communities. It didn't require huge skill and the materials were all got locally. When the buildings became unoccupied, they disintegrated and merged back into the landscape. I'm not suggesting for a minute that people should go back to living in mud hovels but the point is that people then at least had the capacity to provide shelter for themselves and their families.

    Contrast that to modern times, when everything is bound up in regulation and specialisation. The provision of accommodation has fallen outside the means of the ordinary citizen and the buildings we usually construct now, draw far more on the earths resources and use materials that will persist longer after a building has been abandoned.

    Apart from all that, there are people living in mobile homes up and down the country. Where they're on private land, you don't see or hear or any particular push from local authorities to have them vacated.


  • #53
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,837 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    Contrast that to modern times, when everything is bound up in regulation and specialisation. The provision of accommodation has fallen outside the means of the ordinary citizen and the buildings we usually construct now, draw far more on the earths resources and use materials that will persist longer after a building has been abandoned.
    .

    carbon emissions from residential sector rose by 7.9% last year.
    the older housing stock being the worst contributors obviously.

    you cannot make the above argument as being acceptable in the reality of global warming, climate change and fuel shortages.
    BarryD2 wrote: »
    Apart from all that, there are people living in mobile homes up and down the country. Where they're on private land, you don't see or hear or any particular push from local authorities to have them vacated.

    People who live full time in mobile homes have a life expectancy almost 20% lower than people who do not. They are significantly more prone to having continuous medical issues due to living in substandard accommodation.

    i don't know about you, but i do not want that situation for any of my family or children. We're not america, trailer parks are not acceptable here.


  • #54
    Bdjsjsjs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 82 ✭✭Bdjsjsjs


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    carbon emissions from residential sector rose by 7.9% last year.
    the older housing stock being the worst contributors obviously.

    you cannot make the above argument as being acceptable in the reality of global warming, climate change and fuel shortages.



    People who live full time in mobile homes have a life expectancy almost 20% lower than people who do not. They are significantly more prone to having continuous medical issues due to living in substandard accommodation.

    i don't know about you, but i do not want that situation for any of my family or children. We're not america, trailer parks are not acceptable here.
    Studies of UK building stock found early postwar buildings were the least efficient, worse than Victorian buildings. A Dublin BER of a Georgian townhouse with single glazing estimated BER at D1.


    This is after decades of decay and without the consideration for efficiency and modern building science in mind. if you use 1750s technology with modern building science you can take efficiency much higher.


    https://passivehouseplus.ie/articles/conservation/does-old-mean-cold


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    proof please?

    you refer to building standards as "code" so im going to suggest your not overly familiar with irish building regulations and standards. american or canadian influence i wonder?

    single skin log cabins.......... (which is exactly what we are talking about here... again let me quote you the query which is being dealt with)


    ........... will come nowhere near the requirements of irish building regulations in regards to energy efficiency regulations ie elemental u values, air tightness, etc.

    can you point me please to log cabins for sale in ireland which have tested and certified results for u values compatible with an A3 house without remedial works?
    or for air tightness results suitable for MHRV (lets say 3m3/(h.m2) without significant remedial works?

    they do not comply with the requirements of fire spread in TGB in regard to internal linings.. without significant remedial works applied.
    https://www.log-cabins-revealed.com/log-cabin-fire-treatment.html

    can you show me any log cabin for sale in ireland that has a fire spread (linings) rating of B7 or better without remedial works ??

    Again you are using strawmen to push your agenda. So few real log cabins have been built in Ireland but I don't even know if even if 5 real log cabins have been been built here. They are so rare so I have no idea if they met code but they were legally built so you could look into it. But I do know that if it is possible to meet regulations if done well. In contrast I have been in post 2011 houses that were freezing and truly uncomfortable buildings. Draughty drywall opening to cold attics and fibreglass absent from large parts of the attic ceiling. Block is a great material but in homes the quality of the craftsmanship is more important than the material.



    A log built built wall is very slow to burn. Garden sheds burn easily.


  • #55
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,837 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    so....

    absolutely no proof at all then????

    none? not even an air tight test result on a real life example??

    thats not very good for any argument you are trying to make.


  • #56
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,783 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    Bdjsjsjs wrote: »

    So few real log cabins have been built in Ireland but I don't even know if even if 5 real log cabins have been been built here. They are so rare so I have no idea if they met code but they were legally built so you could look into it.

    You are the one arguing that they exist, the onus is on you to provide proof, otherwise your posts cant be taken seriously and can be considering trolling.

    So, the onus is on you to demonstrate a Building Regulation compliant Log Cabin here in Ireland ( or Code Compliant as you put it, which would appear to show you are not involved in any way in the Irish Construction Industry as we do not use that word, either here, the UK or close by).

    Bdjsjsjs wrote: »
    In contrast I have been in post 2011 houses that were freezing and truly uncomfortable buildings. Draughty drywall opening to cold attics and fibreglass absent from large parts of the attic ceiling. Block is a great material but in homes the quality of the craftsmanship is more important than the material.

    This is not a Building Regulation failure, its a workmanship failure then. If the products have not been installed correctly, then how can you expect the whole package or house envelope to perform correctly. Also, if these issues are known, then why are they not fixed in those particular dwellings?


  • #57
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,141 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    there are people living in mobile homes up and down the country. Where they're on private land, you don't see or hear or any particular push from local authorities to have them vacated.

    BryanF wrote: »

    Everyone posting in this thread, please read sections 2,3 & 6 of the forum charter.

    We obey the law in this forum, posters intimating/ discussing how to skirt the law will be banned, thanks
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055036302
    .


  • #58
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,141 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    The contradictions!
    Bdjsjsjs wrote: »
    Again you are using strawmen to push your agenda. So few real log cabins have been built in Ireland but I don't even know if even if 5 real log cabins have been been built here. They are so rare so I have no idea if they met codebut they were legally built so you could look into it. .
    So you don’t know if the meet code, but you then you state
    Bdjsjsjs wrote: »
    That list is a useful guide to make any room (like those garden sheds) meet code but absolutely you do not need these specs to meet code in all conditions. An actual log cabin from the 1700s would meet many of the code requirements by default.

    I’m struggling to see anything other than trolling here.

    This is an Irish forum btw, so we comply with Irish codes, discussing Irish building methods


  • #59
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    People who live full time in mobile homes have a life expectancy almost 20% lower than people who do not. They are significantly more prone to having continuous medical issues due to living in substandard accommodation.

    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.


  • #60
    Bdjsjsjs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 82 ✭✭Bdjsjsjs


    BryanF wrote: »
    The contradictions!
    So you don’t know if the meet code, but you then you state

    I’m struggling to see anything other than trolling here.

    This is an Irish forum btw, so we comply with Irish codes, discussing Irish building methods

    You claimed that the following specs would be needed to meet
    wall as follows, Inside to out:
    Plasterboard,
    50mm service void, (mineral wool at key junctions)
    Vapour barrier/air-tightness membrane ,
    225mm timber framed wall full fill cellulose insulation (twin wall 100mm studs with bracing between),
    Racking board osb,
    breathable felt,
    Cross battened vented cavity (gutex used at key junctions),
    Cement fibre board,
    Acrylic render
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Bdjsjsjs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 82 ✭✭Bdjsjsjs


    kceire wrote: »
    You are the one arguing that they exist, the onus is on you to provide proof, otherwise your posts cant be taken seriously and can be considering trolling.

    So, the onus is on you to demonstrate a Building Regulation compliant Log Cabin here in Ireland ( or Code Compliant as you put it, which would appear to show you are not involved in any way in the Irish Construction Industry as we do not use that word, either here, the UK or close by).

    This is not a Building Regulation failure, its a workmanship failure then. If the products have not been installed correctly, then how can you expect the whole package or house envelope to perform correctly. Also, if these issues are known, then why are they not fixed in those particular dwellings?
    WTF? When did I say that Irish building code was failing? I was making the point that modern methods can be used badly too.

    In the cases I have seen the builders are not interested in fixing them. I wasn't involved with them.


  • #62
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,837 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #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.


  • #64
    scamalert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #65
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,837 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #66
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,837 ✭✭✭✭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
  • #67
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,837 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #68
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,141 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?


  • #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.


  • #70
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,837 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #71
    Goldengirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,201 ✭✭✭✭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
  • #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.


  • #73
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,140 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #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?


  • #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.


  • #76
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,837 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #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?


  • #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.


  • #79
    lalababa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭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.


  • #80
    lalababa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭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 ?


  • #81
    BorneTobyWilde
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,423 ✭✭✭✭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
  • #82
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,837 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #83
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,837 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #84
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,219 ✭✭✭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.


  • #85
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,156 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #86
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭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)


  • #87
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,141 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


  • #88
    lalababa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭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?


  • #89
    lalababa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭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.


  • #90
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,837 ✭✭✭✭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
  • #91
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,837 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #92
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,140 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #93
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,156 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


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

    I didn't know that :)


  • #94
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,783 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.


  • #95
    BorneTobyWilde
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,423 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #96
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,783 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
  • #97
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,837 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #98
    lalababa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭lalababa


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


  • #99
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,837 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #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.


  • #101
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,783 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
Advertisement