Garden rooms to be exempt

Roderic O'Gorman just said on RTE Radio that if a ban on renting these out isn't included in the planning rules around them it will be a recipe for disaster for neighbours to these garden rooms and TD's like him who'll have to deal with the complaints/fall out.

This is the same Roderick who a few years ago granted planning exemptions to anyone creating IPAS accommodation with no regard at all to the neighbours or locality in general!
 
They might just as well legalise shantytowns but they won't because existing homeowners (voters) won't profit from it.
 
Farmers might be happy to supply their land for shantytowns. The profit might be higher than with the usual payments from Brussels.
 
This is the same Roderick who a few years ago granted planning exemptions to anyone creating IPAS accommodation with no regard at all to the neighbours or locality in general!
The evidence makes it clear that was a free-for all, so I wouldn't expect this one to be either.
 
At this stage the government actually should make it a free for all- if the land is zoned residential you can build anything you like as long as it complies with building regulations. You should only need to notify the local authority of, not apply for permission for, any development of residential property.

The local authorities should have the authority to veto any residential development if and only if the submitted design doesn't comply with building regulations.

The current system sure isn't working. Too many moaners shafting society to protect their own narrow and short term interests.
 
If there is a lot of state owned or zoned land that could be used for residential purposes but the state or councils or developers don’t have the funds, why can’t councils just put in the utilities and sell ready to go plots to private individuals so they can build their own affordable house. Better than spending 50-60k on a cabin in someone’s back garden as a temporary measure.

Councils could sell plot owners the drawings for permitted designs. People don’t need to hire architects or get planning permission, they just choose their pre-approved preferred design. Councils get income from the rtg plot, the plans, inspections, certification.

I don’t know if small builders could build one or more houses more quickly, but large developments need large funding and the whole estate needs to be finished before anyone can buy. Maybe large developers could just concentrate on apartment buildings and building houses directly for councils.
Of course inspectors would be needed to make sure building regulations are complied with. Maybe already zoned land that can’t be developed because of lack of funding could also be sold in RTG plots.
Probably a crazy idea but could something like that work?
 
Last edited:
Can't be making sensible suggestions like that now. People might get ideas.

Friends of mine bought such a site from Luxembourg, just across the border in Belgium. All the other buyers were also Luxembourgish. Already zoned and serviced so they just needed a cursory PP and off it went. Built a lovely home. Its certainly a solution for rural areas and small towns currently bypassed by the development system and its something for those who live in rural areas excluded by tightly defined ideas of what a "local needs" means.

But it won't happen because developers and landowners cannot make money out of it, neighbours will object, and opposition will object because every proposed solution removes the endless gravy train that continues as long as there is a housing crisis.
 
But on a wider scale, how will systems cope? Water pressure, sewage, national grid?

My first thought when I heard about the back garden cabins was will they be allowed a connection to the existing sewage systems.

Given how strict Co Councils and the EPA are about sewage systems in planning up to this point I am curious about this idea.
 
I think this is going to be a disaster. My neighbour already has a block large ‘shed’ out the back which I suppose could easily become residential! I know I wouldn’t like nor want ianother house next door. I bought my house as a single house beside a single house and want it to stay that way.
As someone already said parking is already crazy here, where would all the extra cars go? How would sewage work? , depending on the new people you may no longer have peace and quiet in your back yard. Our houses are very close together, you’d have no privacy whatsoever.
I hope this doesn’t become a thing!
 
I guess at any point your neighbours could make decisions that impact your quality of life....they can rent or sell to a person who has 4 cars in their household, spends a lot of time in their gardens etc. In a built up area no-one gets to decide, within planning laws at least. How likely actually is it that your neighbour will convert the shed, add plumbing etc?
 
@blanketyblank

By your logic, your neighbours couldn't extend their houses, have larger families , take in lodgers, get a dog, let their children play in their back garden, or socialise in their own home because they might disturb your peace and quiet in your back yard.

God forbid you have neighbours whose several children have to live there well into adulthood and employment and buy their own cars and have visitors with their own cars, largely because every NIMBY in the country doesn't want more people living in their estate/town because of the impact it'd have on traffic, schools, GPs etc but those same NIMBYs are somehow totally blind to the fact that ALL OF THOSE "NEW PEOPLE" ARE ALREADY LIVING THERE, THEY'RE JUST LIVING IN THEIR CHILDHOOD BEDROOMS OR OTHER OVERCROWDED CONDITIONS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T FIND ANYWHERE ELSE TO RENT OR BUY FOR THEMSELVES.

How do loons actually manage to convince themselves that someone is pooing less, peeing less, showering less, doing less laundry, washing fewer dishes, using less internet, driving less, needing to go to the GP less etc etc because they're crammed 5 or 6 adults to a 3 bed semi-D household instead of being able to move out and form households of their preferred size in their preferred location?

Sewage & water systems throughout the country is in a poor state because of at least 50 years of inadequate investment. Infrastructure planning & development is reactive instead of proactive. And it's a totally separate issue from any kind of housing development, including someone building a residential cabin in their back garden.
 
Last edited:
People are constrained in what they can do today, their neighbours have certain rights and entitlements that can't be trampled by the selfish actions of a one individual. Let's not pretend that this proposal will distinguish those rights entirely.


And it's a totally separate issue from any kind of housing development, including someone building a residential cabin in their back garden.
That's exactly the kind of thinking that has us in this mess!! Don't worry about services, sure just throw up shacks anywhere you have a corner and them moan once the system is overwhelmed for all.
 
@Leo

One selfish individual can absolutely trample on their neighbour's rights & entitlements, because unless you have pockets deep enough to go to court nobody is going to do anything for you. Anyone who has ever had a bad neighbour knows that very well, and good for you if you've only had great ones. Vindicating your rights through the courts is a long and expensive process, and usually not worth it. Fortunately most people in most areas are decent enough at least to the extent where they don't make the place crap for their neighbours.

Houses & apartments don't produce sewage. The people living in them do. Houses & apartments don't drive cars. The people living in them do. So on and so forth, etc etc etc.

It's obvious that provision of all kinds of services has been neglected for decades. At best government (national & local) plan to satisfy the needs of the population as it is now in 5 or 10 years time. And of course in 10 years time the population is higher so there's still a shortfall. Arguably the only thing Ireland has had more of than it required at any point in time during my almost-half-century of life has been housing, and that for only 5-10 years around 2010.

In my opinion, infrastructure & services should be available to deliver the expected required services plus at least 10%. That's basically eliminate problems getting a place in a school or creche, a GP, hospital waiting lists, etc etc. What actually happens is they plan for 90% and try and stretch it.
  • EDIT- it's obviously important to note that it will never ever be possible to provide all desired services to all people. I would say food, housing (including heating), healthcare, education & childcare, and policing & justice, are all required while probably everything else is desired. Every desired service should be prioritised according to how it contributes to a required service— there'd probably be some surprising results, for example there's plenty of evidence that increasing tree cover increases health & wellbeing while reducing crime. So working to make Donnycarney as leafy as Donnybrook reduces spending on healthcare and policing & justice....

GPs need homes too. As do the engineers & construction workers to build water & the sewage systems, and roads etc etc. Teachers need places to live as well. Etc etc. When the classic young middle class couple of a teacher and a guard can't move out of their childhood bedrooms because there's nothing there to buy or rent, you've got a serious problem. And anything which alleviates that problem is very welcome.

1 in10 houses getting a log cabin and two additional residents is not going to collapse society as we know it.

Actually, 1 in10 would be around 200,000 studio apartments in short order which would be absolutely amazing. I'd say we'd be lucky to get 1 in 100. Aside from anything else, most people with the physical space, the money, and inclination to put these in their back gardens probably already has them and they're just hoping the council doesn't come knocking for a while.
 
Last edited:
One selfish individual can absolutely trample on their neighbour's rights & entitlements, because unless you have pockets deep enough to go to court nobody is going to do anything for you.
That is clearly false in this context as evidenced by many LA enforcement proceedings. Show me some examples of where someone built an un-authorised house in an urban area where the authorities didn't take action?

It's obvious that provision of all kinds of services has been neglected for decades.
True in some cases, but the people spoke and most refused to pay charges. Deciding to put those under-funded services under increased pressure isn't a solution.

At best government (national & local) plan to satisfy the needs of the population as it is now in 5 or 10 years time.
Perhaps you should read some of the development plans and learn how those factors are considered.

GPs need homes too. As do the engineers & construction workers to build water & the sewage systems,
That's just it, they need homes, not sub 40sqm sheds cramped into small gardens. We have housing challenges, not quite an emergency, we should look resolve the issues there and not create. Covering the precious little green space with sub-standard cramped accommodation is just going to create more problems.
 
Actually, 1 in10 would be around 200,000 studio apartments in short order which would be absolutely amazing.
Actually, it wouldn't. It's already a struggle to get trades, where are all the builders going to come from?
 
According to Saturday’s Independent, the initiative is intended to apply more to rural areas and houses with plenty of space and is not intended to be widely used in built-up areas and urban estates. There would still need to be 25 square metres of free space remaining in the garden.

If that is the case, it would be disappointing in terms of a measure to create additional rental capacity. One has to ask what need the policy would be responding to and who is it designed to assist and benefit?

In terms of addressing the lack of rental accommodation, this initiative would be of little benefit. However, as the Indo article says “a lot of the rural TDs are delighted’’.
 
There's a 588 square metre mansion in Meath which the council have been trying unsuccessfully to get knocked for the last 20 years or so, including at least one trip to the Supreme Court.
I know the one, it's not in an urban garden so does not satisfy the criteria specified. It's also not an example of where the authorities didn't take enforcement proceedings as it was only those proceedings brought the case to the public eye. They've spent a lot of money fighting that and are not home free (if you'll excuse the pun) yet.


And I don't think anyone is suggesting that a flatpack from B&Q would be acceptable accommodation, and it sounds like the requirements for open space would remain as they are for extensions & sheds at (I think) 25 square metres.
Precisely my point, it won't, and shouldn't be a free-for-all. In the right context and at the right scale there's a good case for these.


Cost is a good reason, most the the UK / European modular manufacturers won't ship here for that reason.