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??

13

Comments

  • #102
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,781 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.


  • #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.


  • #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.


  • #105
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,781 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.


  • #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.


  • #107
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,781 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.


  • #108
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,141 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


  • #109
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,824 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #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


  • #111
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,824 ✭✭✭✭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
  • #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.


  • #113
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,824 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #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.


  • #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.


  • #116
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,824 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #117
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,824 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #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?


  • #119
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,824 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #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
  • #121
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,738 ✭✭✭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?


  • #122
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,824 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Bdjsjsjs wrote: »
    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.

    So still even more vacuous posts.

    Until you actually post something of merit, with detail and evidence to back up your points, then personally I'm not going to engage with you. What you are doing to this thread is tantamount of "seagulling".

    If you want to advocate for log cabins as being acceptable for long term habitation in Ireland, please show by evidential proof how they comply with Irish building regulations.

    If you cannot, then why post?


  • #123
    Dudda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Dudda


    Quantum Erasure wrote: »
    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?
    If the house was derelict for a while (don't know the time without looking it up but a guess it's 5 years) then you need planning permission to turn it back to a habitat property.
    Option A - It has a roof
    If it has a roof and windows and isn't in that bad a condition then it's probably habitable. You'll need planning permission for any derelict property and you'll probably need to upgrade the septic tank to new regulation or get an engineers report to prove it's in good working order. You'll need to get an electrical connection reestablished. If you don't go changing that much with the cottage it's fairly straight forward.
    Option B - No roof
    This is uninhabitable currently. You'll need planning permission to make it habitable as per option A but as it's a cottage in the countryside and it's not a habitable house you may need to prove housing need in the local area. As it needs a new roof the building regulations kick in particularly part L which is the new insulation regulations as you'll most likely go over the 20% of the external fabric with the roof. This means you'll have to upgrade everything. The planning will probably hit you for a new septic tank to meet current regulations too which could be expensive rather than keeping the existing. With no roof you're probably looking at moving some internal walls which may have collapsed. These need to be to current regulations including structure, fire, noise, etc.

    Option C - Protected Structure
    A lot more complicated. Depends on if the condition, what level of protected status, etc.


  • #124
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,141 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    Bdjsjsjs wrote: »
    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.

    And we’ll leave there thanks. Back on topic, or thread will be closed. Thanks


  • #125
    lalababa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭lalababa


    kceire wrote: »
    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.

    So if I had 600mm of CE marked construction timber complying with IS440 as a wall I would be ok for parts A,B,C,D,E & L?? I could bolt up 12 2*9's to give me the 600mm to be compliant with u-values. Or am I missing something...like would the bolts have to be tested at NASA.


  • #126
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,781 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    lalababa wrote: »
    So if I had 600mm of CE marked construction timber complying with IS440 as a wall I would be ok for parts A,B,C,D,E & L?? I could bolt up 12 2*9's to give me the 600mm to be compliant with u-values. Or am I missing something...like would the bolts have to be tested at NASA.

    IS440 is the guidance and it states NSAI Standard registration.
    You have to be able to stand over the system, not just an individual element.

    Its why any qualified Carpenter cannot just erect a timber stick building and declare it a timber frame and compliant.

    Your best bet is to call one of the Registered Timber frame Companies in Ireland and get a price for a compliant structure in the dimensions you require.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,824 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    lalababa wrote: »
    So if I had 600mm of CE marked construction timber complying with IS440 as a wall I would be ok for parts A,B,C,D,E & L?? I could bolt up 12 2*9's to give me the 600mm to be compliant with u-values. Or am I missing something...like would the bolts have to be tested at NASA.

    where is this 600mm thickness coming from?


  • #128
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,135 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    where is this 600mm thickness coming from?
    I assume it's the thickness of a hypothetical solid timber wall that would meet required uvalues.


  • #129
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,824 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Lumen wrote: »
    I assume it's the thickness of a hypothetical solid timber wall that would meet required uvalues.

    Hummmm but the poster has been told twice that that u value wouldn't comply.

    And now that NZEB will apply, it makes it even harder to comply.


  • #130
    Bdjsjsjs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 82 ✭✭Bdjsjsjs


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    Hummmm but the poster has been told twice that that u value wouldn't comply.

    And now that NZEB will apply, it makes it even harder to comply.


    But given the right specs it would comply.


  • #131
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,824 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Bdjsjsjs wrote: »
    But given the right specs it would comply.

    The right specs are already available.

    They cost on average €150 per sq ft for new builds.

    They are not garden sheds.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Bdjsjsjs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 82 ✭✭Bdjsjsjs


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    The right specs are already available.

    They cost on average €150 per sq ft for new builds.

    They are not garden sheds.
    So basically

    sydthebeat:"The 2/3 mainstream ways that houses are built in this country are the only ways houses can ever be built, ignore innovation in building science, now stfu"


  • #133
    lalababa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭lalababa


    Sorry, I thought 600mm would comply 'coz it has a u-value of less than .21. somebody on this thread said that was the minimum u-value required according to building reg.s.

    But then somebody else posted that .21 was non compliant and maybe you'd be looking at more like .15 and 800mm.
    I wonder if you devised a system such as maybe 1/2" of treated compliant construction timber cladding on the outside ,12" of compliant construction timber ('coz logs are non compliant) and like 10" of compliant insulation on the inside, with a 1/2" compliant construction timber cladding inside .. like you know make a wall out of several compliant elements sort of thing.
    Would that satisfy parts A,B,C,D,E and ...er L?
    Like if every element is fire compliant , then every element should probably have a fire compliance value, same with insulative value. So if you worked out a sum of compliance values to equal or exceed other compliant building systems you'd be compliant?
    All that said though I'd really like the look of log house or a cob house.
    Maybe I should just go live in Finland or Cornwall.


  • #134
    tea and coffee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,836 ✭✭✭tea and coffee


    Those cabins that some sheds manufacturers - steel or wood or "home office" type ones (but actually are 1 or 2 bedrooms) of about 20 sq m... are they legal?
    And yes I have read through the thread and find that much has been snipped, so I'm finding it difficult to see the definition of a long cabin... is the answer what I have described Above? If so, How are they allowed sell them as "2 bed chalet " or 10 x 6 m 2 bed room house or "2 bed residential house"
    If they don't comply with building regs how can they sell them?!
    As for planning, I guess that is the purchasers issue.


  • #135
    lalababa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭lalababa


    tea and coffee wrote: »
    Those cabins that some sheds manufacturers - steel or wood or "home office" type ones (but actually are 1 or 2 bedrooms) of about 20 sq m... are they legal?
    And yes I have read through the thread and find that much has been snipped, so I'm finding it difficult to see the definition of a long cabin... is the answer what I have described Above? If so, How are they allowed sell them as "2 bed chalet " or 10 x 6 m 2 bed room house or "2 bed residential house"
    If they don't comply with building regs how can they sell them?!
    As for planning, I guess that is the purchasers issue.

    Yera ,you can sell a dustbin and call it a house. Just don't mention that it is compliant with habitational planning reg.s🙂 Almost everything is legal -shed/office/manden etc. But only compliant erections are legal to live in. I.e. a dwelling . Planning and building regulations compliant.

    As for log cabins/houses, according to the experts on this thread, they can NEVER be compliant until such time as a log cabin/house building system has been tested (I think by a lab somewhere in Austria was it) and approved.
    So whomever wants to go about it can jolly well trot on with it. They will be a trailblazer of some repute.
    It's the same auld story from the same auld shysters. Planning of any sort in this country is a one size fits all f**k up. Is it really any surprise?


  • #136
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,824 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Bdjsjsjs wrote: »
    So basically

    sydthebeat:"The 2/3 mainstream ways that houses are built in this country are the only ways houses can ever be built, ignore innovation in building science, now stfu"

    So now your resorting to telling straight out lies???

    Wow.


  • #137
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,824 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    lalababa wrote: »
    Sorry, I thought 600mm would comply 'coz it has a u-value of less than .21. somebody on this thread said that was the minimum u-value required according to building reg.s.

    ???

    It was YOU who claimed that 600mm would comply because that gave a u value of 0.21.

    But you were told twice after that, that that u value would not comply because that's a backstop value, not a minimum goal to reach.




    Its VERY VERY simple to understand. I seriously cannot understand why people have such difficulty grasping this.

    If you want to live in a log cabin, you need to prove that the cabin complies with all building regulations. In order to do this you need to get many aspects of the build tested and certified by relevant certification bodies. This generally could be NSAI but there are alternatives too.

    Once you have all those aspects tested and certified that they are suitable for use... Then brilliant!! You can move in your log home.

    The problem is, and the log cabin Manufacturers know this damn well... Is that this testing is rigorous and expensive.

    THEY will not go to this expense as providers, probably as they know their systems wont comply.... So why should ye as individual end users go to that expense?? You are absolutely NOT going to get a cheaper home by going down that route.


  • #138
    _Brian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,617 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    Of course they should be legal, once they meet or exceed current building regs.


  • #139
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,141 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    lalababa wrote: »
    So if I had 600mm of CE marked construction timber complying with IS440 as a wall I would be ok for parts A,B,C,D,E & L?? I could bolt up 12 2*9's to give me the 600mm to be compliant with u-values. Or am I missing something...like would the bolts have to be tested at NASA.
    Read this,
    https://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/building-standards/TGD-part-D-materials-and-workmanship/technical-guidance-documents


  • #140
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,141 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    tea and coffee wrote: »
    Those cabins that some sheds manufacturers - steel or wood or "home office" type ones (but actually are 1 or 2 bedrooms) of about 20 sq m... are they legal?
    .
    If you use it as a shed, there fine

    If you use them as habitable accommodation ie a bedroom there illegal

    Don’t confuse planning with building regs


  • #141
    lalababa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭lalababa


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    ???

    It was YOU who claimed that 600mm would comply because that gave a u value of 0.21.

    But you were told twice after that, that that u value would not comply because that's a backstop value, not a minimum goal to reach.




    Its VERY VERY simple to understand. I seriously cannot understand why people have such difficulty grasping this.

    If you want to live in a log cabin, you need to prove that the cabin complies with all building regulations. In order to do this you need to get many aspects of the build tested and certified by relevant certification bodies. This generally could be NSAI but there are alternatives too.

    Once you have all those aspects tested and certified that they are suitable for use... Then brilliant!! You can move in your log home.

    The problem is, and the log cabin Manufacturers know this damn well... Is that this testing is rigorous and expensive.

    THEY will not go to this expense as providers, probably as they know their systems wont comply.... So why should ye as individual end users go to that expense?? You are absolutely NOT going to get a cheaper home by going down that route.

    I've bought an axe and I've booked my tickets to Finland. Log habitual structures here we come!
    Twas always my backstop position.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,824 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Well if you don't like the laws in this country... Don't let the door hit you....


  • #143
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,141 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    and with the habitual structures of Finland on the horizon

    We’ll leave it there

    Thanks


  • #144
    Bdjsjsjs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 82 ✭✭Bdjsjsjs


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    Well if you don't like the laws in this country... Don't let the door hit you....
    Bad laws


  • #145
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,824 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Bdjsjsjs wrote: »
    Bad laws

    No actually.

    In relation to our European partners we actually have very robust building regulations.

    Anyone who thinks they are bad only thinks so because they want to try to circumvent them.


  • #146
    Bdjsjsjs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 82 ✭✭Bdjsjsjs


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    No actually.

    In relation to our European partners we actually have very robust building regulations.

    Anyone who thinks they are bad only thinks so because they want to try to circumvent them.


    I think they are bad. I have many posts here discussing the matter and recommending people not to circumvent them. So you are clueless. Can I have an apology now for your bs claiming I am trying to break the law?


  • #147
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,824 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Bdjsjsjs wrote: »
    I think they are bad. I have many posts here discussing the matter and recommending people not to circumvent them. So you are clueless. Can I have an apology now for your bs claiming I am trying to break the law?

    :D

    we're still waiting for you to prove your assertion
    Bdjsjsjs wrote:
    Well built traditional style log cabins are not passive level but they would be more airtight, secure and fire proof than a lot of the Irish housing stock

    you were asked over a month ago to prove this... but tumble weeds since...

    even your attempts at telling lies here were p!ss poor :D


  • #148
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,781 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    :D

    we're still waiting for you to prove your assertion



    you were asked over a month ago to prove this... but tumble weeds since...

    even your attempts at telling lies here were p!ss poor :D

    The same poster over in A&P claiming that people not being allowed to convert out sheds to air bnb is the cause of the housing crisis :)


  • #149
    Bdjsjsjs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 82 ✭✭Bdjsjsjs


    kceire wrote: »
    The same poster over in A&P claiming that people not being allowed to convert out sheds to air bnb is the cause of the housing crisis :)
    I don't mean to patronising but we cant escape economics. the cost of providing accommodation is directly linked to abundance of new accommodation being supplied. I really doubt when pressed that you would disagree with this.


  • #150
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,781 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    Bdjsjsjs wrote: »
    I don't mean to patronising but we cant escape economics. the cost of providing accommodation is directly linked to abundance of new accommodation being supplied. I really doubt when pressed that you would disagree with this.

    You do realise conversion to Airbnb doesn’t help the housing crisis.
    Also, many empty houses, the problem is people and our social system system that allows social tenants to pick and choose houses that they want.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,824 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Bdjsjsjs wrote: »
    ...... the cost of providing accommodation is directly linked to abundance of new accommodation being supplied.......

    thats a tenuous connection at best.

    the cost of providing accommodation is linked to labour costs, material costs, land costs, tax and levy rates... and other lesser factors

    the "abundance of new accommodation supplied" only affects one of these factors .. namely labour costs, in that IF labour supply is limited, labour costs increase.
    If labour supply rises to match demand, then that factors doesnt affect cost to provide accommodation

    materials costs, land costs, taxes and levies are not affected by the supply rate of new accommodation onto the market.

    ive already given my opinion as to the main problem here


Advertisement