‘The File Has Now Been Closed’

at

Last month, Dublin Rental Investigator – whose Twitter account will be a year old next week – reported the property at 35 Bunting Road in Walkinstown, Dublin 12, to Dublin City Council, Dublin Fire Brigade and the Property Services Regulatory Authority.

The property, which is comprised of nine self-contained units, was being sold by Gillespie Lowe and presented as an “excellent opportunity” .

Advertised on Daft.ie, the company said it offers an income of more than €70,000 a year.

Dublin Rental Investigator pointed out to the council, fire brigade and PSRA that the property has a make-shift structure built behind the property and that they could not find any record of planning permission for a conversion to flats or otherwise.

They also highlighted “a real fire safety concern”.

Dublin Rental Investigator has since tweeted a response from Dublin City Council (above).

They added:

Frustrating news regarding the 35 Bunting Road Property. Dublin City Council states it’s over 7 years old so there’s nothing they can do. The amount of tenants that lived in those conditions.

I urge anyone who sees someone renting a structure that doesn’t have planning permission to report it as a matter of urgency as once the structure is in place for 7 years Dublin City Council are barred from taking action.

Previously: Cry To Let

34 thoughts on “‘The File Has Now Been Closed’

  1. phil

    7 years old eh! I wonder how the owner proved that the ‘work’ was done over 7 yrs ago if there was no planning permission or a failed planning application ?

    1. Liam

      on Google Earth you can go back in time on the satellite images. It was there in 2008 at least.

  2. eoin

    That’s highly suspicious.

    Can you imagine what the neighbours on either side thought about what must have been several weeks, if not months, of extensive construction work. Did none of them contact Dublin City Council? Really?

    I’m not suggesting at all that enforcement officers would take bribes to look the other way, but surely there was some contact with the Council when the works were being undertaken. I wonder what a FOI request might reveal?

    1. eoin

      Also, planning approval is one thing, but building regulation compliance is another. If there is a genuine fire concern as alluded to by DRI above, then wouldn’t this be a legitimate matter for investigation by DCC at any time? What would statute-barring have to do with it?

    2. Cian

      eoin, I’m not suggesting that you’re an idiot, but surely there are reasons to suggest you are.

      1. theo kretschmar-schuldorff

        Eoin is on the money suggesting an FOI.
        By DCC’s rules, if anyone raised the matter before the 7-year cut-off, the case can be re-opened on foot of an investigation into that complaint.

      2. GiggidyGoo

        gas – when the spotlight shines on officialdom, Cian The Apologist rears his head with the usual nonsense.

          1. Cian

            If you think I was insulting eoin, do you also think eoin was accusing DCC enforcement officers of taking bribes to look the other way?

          2. Jewel N Darlen

            I do. I put very little stock on anything Eoin says.
            But this time he appears to have a point. Because you don’t like it it was straight to the insult

    3. Jeffrey

      I was done over many years – first a kitchen at the back of the house then a garage at end of the garden and later they filled the gap in the middle, simples.

  3. George

    DCC enforcement of housing standards is a joke. How could they have missed this?
    They don’t do any proactive investigation at all of rented accommodation or of obvious planning violations. They say they can only investigate complaints.

    1. Qwerty123

      Actually, as per Eoin and broadsheet, this responsibility should lie with daft.ie. not the council.

    1. steve white

      exactly there must be separate safety issue, where are windows on it, is there a narrow windows along the top?

    1. GiggidyGoo

      Retention only comes in to it if the council are on the ball, or you’re trying to sell. If you build with no planning permission though and can prove that the building has existed more than five years (I think) the council can do sweet puckawl.

  4. Brother Barnabas

    even though DCC is statute barred from doing anything, that doesn’t mean that the development has planning permission. it doesn’t. it’s still classed as an unauthorised development. a buyer’s solicitor has to give an undertaking to buyer’s lender that the property has a clean title, which won’t happen when proper planning permission isn’t there. seller either has to look for a cash buyer
    or try to regularise things by submitting a retention planning application. that would never be approved.

    1. Brother Barnabas

      (so they won’t get anything like 700k for it… the cash buyer holds all the cards)

    2. GiggidyGoo

      Not so sure about that. I came across a house on an auction site that wasn’t built in accordance with the planning permission, and I checked it out. According to a solicitor, because it was more than five (as far as I remember) years ago when it was completed, the council couldn’t do anything about it. How that translates into the deeds I don’t know, but there are no sanctions the council can place on you.

  5. johnny

    -TGIF:)

    from the post at top….”I urge anyone who sees someone renting a structure that doesn’t have planning permission to report it..”

    “even though DCC is statute barred from doing anything, that doesn’t mean that the development has planning permission. it doesn’t.”

    At no point anywhere has it ever been suggested that it did, common sense or even a small bit reading comprehension like say a child has,could tell you that-duh.But eh thanks once again captain stating the bleeding obvious, so it doesn’t have planning permission right, that’s agreed on then because like you said it,great yeah thanks for that and your expert input:)

    Now this is just WRONG,who said anything about a lender oh you did, the lenders counsel (again with the lender)would do its own due diligence.So after going on and on about an imaginary lender,we are told there is in fact NONE-that’s its a cash only deal-OMG why bother posting about a lender, then say there are none- this is just total complete garbage.

    “a buyer’s solicitor has to give an undertaking to buyer’s lender that the property has a clean title, which won’t happen when proper planning permission isn’t there.”

    Lots of transactions occur without ‘clean’ title,caveat emptor and all that -google Walford the most expensive resi/house transaction in Ireland.But this situation does not in any WAY affect title, clean or otherwise its a legal non conforming use.

    ” seller either has to look for a cash buyer
    or try to regularise things by submitting a retention planning application. that would never be approved.”

    Have no idea what this is supposed to mean ,its just such a stupid statement-the owner has retained an agent, why would any seller be out looking for ‘cash’ buyers, where at ATM’s or the bookies ?

    Again,with your planning nonsense,so the owner/seller is going try ‘regularize’ things but you then state it wont happen-huh what, why would the owner bother then-duh

    So after stating some complete rubbish about an imaginary lender not being able close or lend due to the buyers solicitor not being able provide ‘clean title, we are informed there are NO lenders in fact, only cash buyers.WTF happened to that imaginary lender and the solicitor and the non clean title…..

    Its gets better then the double down-oh i didn’t say that -by the way there’s cards involved now too…..

    Ps-its been removed or was it sold from the two listing sites :)

      1. Johnny

        -see above and TGIF,it’s really warm and sunny with massive swells out east,fantastic surf,yeah I’m going be worried all weekend,who’s reading a throwaway comment made from a bench while drinking my morning coffee…
        -the comment that provoked it was simplistic,ill informed and idiotic.
        -its contradictory and childlike in its grasp of RE 101,the made up or imaginary lender who won’t make a loan if so,which incidentally is also incorrect,why mention a lender if that’s the position taken-mind boggling stupidity and just jaw dropping contradictions abound,from captain stating the bleeding obvious-duh.
        -If you need me explain any the points I made or think I’m wrong – feel free critique or debate then:)

  6. realPolithicks

    With items like this I used to wonder if there were any laws in Ireland, I now see that there are laws but they are simply not enforced.

    1. johnny

      No amount ‘laws’ enforced or otherwise will compensate for the complete and abject failure of a supposedly pro business party, in the midst of an economic boom to create the conditions for builders/developers to build.
      Its housing not more laws or enforcement that will fix this mess-but FG and NAMA asset stripped pretty much all of Irelands developers/builders so they are now building small time student/co living deals in the suburbs.
      Vulture or opportunity funds don’t build, selling most Irelands RE assets to yank or offshore funds will rank as on the most idiotic decisions ever made in Ireland.
      Their model is find them, fix them, flip them-they never build,which is why you have no housing and situations like this,no amount of laws or lack of enforcement will ‘fix’ this-just BUILD some housing FFS,its really not that hard to do,or at least create the conditions to do so by loosening credit/lending to builders.

      1. Cian

        So it’s FG’s fault because they set up NAMA and because they won’t loosen credit/lend to the builders?

        1. Johnny

          No I blame the housing fairy for not magically building enough housing,gosh not the govt nor the Min of Finance who NAMA report to…
          Cian it’s not rocket science to build a few thousands houses it’s not-outsource it to any number large infrastructure companies on a fixed price,with performance bonuses,FFS we can send people to the moon:)

          1. Cian

            You’ll be delighted to know that that they have build a few thousand houses.

            now quit yer moaning!

          2. Johnny

            FG/NAMA hobbled Ireland’s entire development community by crystallizing or realizing paper losses via that idiotic idea know as NAMA.
            No other country followed suit-ever wonder why if it was such a brilliant idea ?
            The only beneficiaries are the yanks-it was the sale of the century-incompetent financially illiterate FG has asset stripped the entire Irish building/development community.
            I was just working on a new city outside Mumbai-with a large indoor farm-govts/developers are building enormous new cities-yet FG/NAMA can’t even build a few houses or create the environment to.

  7. Johnny

    FG/NAMA hobbled Ireland’s entire development community by crystallizing or realizing paper losses via that idiotic idea know as NAMA.
    No other country followed suit-ever wonder why if it was such a brilliant idea ?
    The only beneficiaries are the yanks-it was the sale of the century-incompetent financially illiterate FG has asset stripped the entire Irish building/development community.
    I was just working on a new city outside Mumbai-with a large indoor farm-govts/developers are building enormous new cities-yet FG/NAMA can’t even build a few houses or create the environment to.

Comments are closed.