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

selling house with no planning

2»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭spin777


    It has to be built for seven years with undisturbed use for it to be exempt from having planning, it used to be five years. You could get a well known reputable architect to provide a letter stating this and add it to the file with the title deeds, might eliminate the cost and time taken to get retention.

    I can 100% guarantee you will not have to knock it even if they refused the retention application, there is nothing the council can do.


  • Subscribers Posts: 40,720 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    spin777 wrote: »
    1. It has to be built for seven years with undisturbed use for it to be exempt from having planning, it used to be five years.



    2. I can 100% guarantee you will not have to knock it even if they refused the retention application, there is nothing the council can do.

    1. Completely wrong, for reasons already outlined in this thread.

    2. Completely correct.


  • Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭spin777


    "
    sydthebeat wrote: »
    1. Completely wrong, for reasons already outlined in this thread."

    How is that wrong. Statute of limitations, also known as the seven year rule


  • Subscribers Posts: 40,720 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    spin777 wrote: »
    sydthebeat wrote: »
    1. Completely wrong, for reasons already outlined in this thread.

    How is that wrong. Statute of limitations, also known as the "seven year rule"

    Because it doesn't become "exempt from requiring planning"

    Its unauthorised, and will remain unauthorised until it's regularised. All that the statute covers is the council proceeding with enforcement actions.

    It's a myth that it become exempt from planning just because the statute of limitations has expired.


  • Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭spin777


    Sorry perhaps the word exempt wasn't ideal. But you DO NOT have to apply for permission for it and doing what I stated might be a way to simplify and explain it to a potential buyer and avoid the possible large costs of a retention application.


  • Advertisement
  • Subscribers Posts: 40,720 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    spin777 wrote: »
    Sorry perhaps the word exempt wasn't ideal. But you DO NOT have to apply for permission for it and doing what I stated might be a way to simplify and explain it to a potential buyer and avoid the possible large costs of a retention application.

    We're going over old ground here but:

    1. It become very difficult to get finance on a property with unauthorised development

    2. You cannot make a valid planning application for anything else if there's unauthorised development on site

    3. It shouldn't be allowed to sell (or buy) a property which isn't authorised and a good solicitor won't allow it.

    4. It doesn't avoid the retention fees, it just means that that headache is passed onto another person.


  • Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭spin777


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    1. It become very difficult to get finance on a property with unauthorised development

    Possibly but it is case specific and we don't know enough about the given property, I financed a inner city Pre 63 property earlier this year, no big deal. won't be a big deal if the ops aunt is selling a small cottage in the countryside plus that was the whole point of my post, a smart way to explain the statute of limitations to a potential buyer and to give them comfort.

    Also, over 50% of sales at the moment are cash buyers so finance doesn't matter.
    sydthebeat wrote: »
    2. You cannot make a valid planning application for anything else if there's unauthorised development on site

    True
    sydthebeat wrote: »
    3. It shouldn't be allowed to sell (or buy) a property which isn't authorised and a good solicitor won't allow it.

    Complete horsesh$te, who "shouldn't allow it? It is not illegal to buy it or sell it, this has already been outlined in the thread. If you are looking for a practical example then here is one people can relate to:

    There is a row of B&B's on what I think is called College Road in Galway, basically every third or fourth house is a B&B, very few of them have planning but they are covered under the seven year rule, these properties regularly change hands, through reputable solicitors.
    sydthebeat wrote: »
    4. It doesn't avoid the retention fees, it just means that that headache is passed onto another person.

    What headache? The house is advertised, you like it you buy it you live in it, why pay possibly €6,000-7,000 now to "fix" something that might not be an issue for another thirty years. It sounds from the op that his Aunt has a small house in the country, possibly valued at 60-70k and your advise is to spend possibly 10% of the houses value to fix something when you haven't even tested the market for a buyer who will buy without "fixing" the problem. Thats a bad use of money in my books.


  • Subscribers Posts: 40,720 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    I won't bother arguing the ins and outs with you on this but if these are properties you arrange finance for, youd better hope the last one standing left holding the hot potato isnt the litigation type.
    Bad practise abouds in the industry, No excuse to condone it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭spin777


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    I won't bother arguing the ins and outs with you on this but if these are properties you arrange finance for, youd better hope the last one standing left holding the hot potato isnt the litigation type.
    Bad practise abouds in the industry, No excuse to condone it.

    I bought it and got finance for it. I'm not holding the hot potato, its more of a beautifully shaped potato that was cheap as chips because people like you don't have a deep enough understanding of the planning laws and think these issues are major when they are not.


  • Subscribers Posts: 40,720 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Yeah fine...

    You keep deluding yourself ;)

    People like me won't be there to drag you out of the hole your in.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭db


    OP, there was an almost identical case in my area a few years ago and the files are still available to view online. PM me if you want the details.

    In this case the original planning was in 1981 and the house was built in the wrong place with the septic tank / percolation in a different area of the site. The boundaries of the site were also changed. The sellers had to get retention permission before the sale could go through and as a result of this the septic tank and percolation had to be changed with full site assessment and design.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 246 ✭✭RITwing


    spin777 wrote: »
    its more of a beautifully shaped potato that was cheap as chips

    You want the op to sell as cheap as chips?
    They will have to if they follow your advice.


  • Registered Users Posts: 78,218 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    kkelliher wrote: »
    This is the crux of my position. It may be unauthorized development but as the statute has passed and no enforcement can be applied.
    Some councils are taking the position that while a prosecution can't happen, enforcement can.
    kkelliher wrote: »
    Completely agree but I would be very surprised if a lender refused to lend on a property built 40 years ago with or without planning. Where would they stop? Given anything build pre 63 does not have planning and given it cannot in any way have enforcement action against it, how is it an issue?
    Most pre-63 don't developments need planning permission.
    mickdw wrote: »
    Another case, I surveyed and reported that I was not satisfied as to the structural condition of the property and advised further investigation re posible pyrite issues. Buyer foolishly went ahead anyway and the bank issued the funds. Seems they simply sent a driveby valuer much like during the boom and he gave the ok.
    Valuers do valuations, not structural inspections.


  • Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭spin777


    RITwing wrote: »
    You want the op to sell as cheap as chips?
    They will have to if they follow your advice.

    No, I think that particular property was cheap because it was a receiver sale and they were given no warranties, no declaration of identity etc etc, typical lazy **** with receivers not willing to get something tidied up to improve the price, as it was pre 63, the statute of limitations applies to a lot of them so getting retention wouldn't of helped the price imho, actually it would of

    I would think though a letter from a reputable architect or planning consultant outlining the seven year rule (statute of declaration) may be sufficient to aid in the resale without spending possibly €6,000 or €7,000 on a retention. I have been involved in many transactions where the solicitors didn't fully gasp this without explaining it to them, this from a small window/velux with no planning to a commercial warehouse operating as a car sales garage also with no planning.

    I think it is unfair to advise the OP to spend thousands when you don't know with absolute certainty that it can't be sold as is.

    Also, a retention might be detrimental as not alone will you have the cost of the application (minimum 4-5k, remember retention fees are higher), if they make you change the percolation and/or septic tank this could be €10-15k.!!

    I completely agree with kkelliher about the bank lending. They wouldn't have a massive issue with this as a lot of old properties have lost planning files or omitted details like compliance certs that are lost and they still go through.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 246 ✭✭RITwing


    Unless the OP finds a buyer who is happy with house as is i.e. does not want to extend and that buyer is unaware that they - the buyer - if they later want to obtain permissions they will incur the reality that
    a retention might be detrimental as not alone will you have the cost of the application (minimum 4-5k, remember retention fees are higher), if they make you change the percolation and/or septic tank this could be €10-15k.

    then the OP may face a tricky sale.

    But I feel we are going in circles now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭spin777


    RITwing wrote: »
    Unless the OP finds a buyer who is happy with house as is i.e. does not want to extend and that buyer is unaware that they - the buyer - if they later want to obtain permissions they will incur the reality that



    then the OP may face a tricky sale.

    But I feel we are going in circles now.

    I think that is a fair summary. I think its worth testing the market, make sure the solicitor and auctioneer are aware of the statute of limitations and if you come up against a big resistance from buyers then go down the retention route. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE test the market first, you might be lucky enough to get a buyer and it might save you the time and cost of a retention.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,198 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    Victor wrote: »

    Valuers do valuations, not structural inspections.

    And you don't think a serious and quite visible structural issue would affect the valuation of the property?


  • Registered Users Posts: 54 ✭✭Foxychick


    Hey Ruskin,

    Just wondering what your aunt decided to do in the end? Parents in similar situation were thinking of applying for retention and selling to downsize but if that process is too much hassle they will prob stay where they are.


  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,135 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    Foxychick wrote: »
    Hey Ruskin,

    Just wondering what your aunt decided to do in the end? Parents in similar situation were thinking of applying for retention and selling to downsize but if that process is too much hassle they will prob stay where they are.

    In most cases it's straight forward. This is standard stuff for most archs


  • Registered Users Posts: 54 ✭✭Foxychick


    BryanF wrote: »
    In most cases it's straight forward. This is standard stuff for most archs

    Cool thanks,

    Do you have any idea how long this takes and how much it costs?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement