Council Fees for House extension

guideanna

Hi All,

This is a query for a friend of mine. They're looking to extend the size of their house, not dramatically but they still had to get planning permission.
Permission has been granted after a meeting with the planners however in the notes with the conditions the planning was subject to, it states they are liable for council fees of €15k!!!!!
Now i've just finished building my house (abiet in a different part of the country but for my new house my council fees were only 7k) so how are South Dublin Council looking for 15 just for an extension on an existing house.
Does anyone know how they work out these figures?

rayjdav

Basically at the start of each year the Councillors ratify, usually upwards, set rates per m/sq for a type of development, ie residential/commercial.

It is set out on the relevant council planning page usually what the rates are per/msq and are for connection to water/sewer/roads/community etc etc.

Now, given the state of the finances in Ireland, these rates as I understand are/were supposed to be decreased in line with the Whole Sale Index. They are part of the Planning process and have been for some years so not much can be done about it I'm sorry but, as you noted, each Council have the powers to set their own rates and some are just stupidly out of this world, with no valid justification imho

guideanna

thanks rayjdav, it's a crazy figure they're looking for. My friend didn't realise they'd be paying council fees because it was an existing house, they have their own well so water connection doesn't even count for them.
They've decided if the figure stays at that they won't be going ahead with their extension as it's too big a % of the overall job. Dublin South CoCo taking the p*ss if you ask me!

sinnerboy

SDCC look for a fair chunk of change for anything local to the Luas line - might this be the case here ?

guideanna

no nearest Luas is a good 15miles away. It's actually on the outskirts of Dublin so not even in a town/village.

harry21

Not sure about Dublin but here in Cork the engineer inspecting the planning permission would calculate the 'development fees'. For an extention you are allowed so many square meters free and you have to pay after that. Not sure what the size is these days? (25 sq. m??)

Anyway.... get whoever did the planning drawings to estimate the 'development charges'.... there could well be a mistake!!:eek: Often happens, just point it out and they will re-adjust.

If not, then the whoever did the drawing let you down by not telling you upfront that these costs would be involved!!!

rayjdav

harry21 wrote: »

If not, then the whoever did the drawing let you down by not telling you upfront that these costs would be involved!!!

This imo is a very unfair statement. Everyone should, at least by now, know that contributions are an unavoidable part and parcel of the Planning system. I have done jobs in the past where I have informed the client of the pending contribution but have been ignored, with them telling me to keep drawing their "mansion" and on receipt of Planning, get an earful about the levy. No win situation from an agents point of view.:rolleyes:

sydthebeat

on a personal note, wiithout knowing anything about the particulars, 15K development charges for any extension is greedy to the point of being vulgar!!!!
this kind of unrealistic notion from local authorities is a huge restriction to getting the construction industry back to anything like alive. Between this, council rates, VAT rates and lack of funding... construction in ireland is dead and buried!

sorry for the slightly off topic rant

sinnerboy

guideanna wrote: »

Does anyone know how they work out these figures?

here

Summary - contribution is €120/m2 , the first 40m2 discounted.

So (€15000/120 )+40 = 165m2. Big Extension.

Still a lot to pay.

sydthebeat

i know we can argue about the figures, but €120 per sq m for the majority will amount to approximately 10% of construction costs. Thats lunacy for a situation where the local authority is providing nothing newer or greater.

Put that on top of a mortgage application and it could be a deal breaker for a bank.

This seriously needs to be reconsidered.

sinnerboy

No argument there Syd. The false economy strangling the real economy . Again.

Ray Palmer

sinnerboy wrote: »

here

Summary - contribution is €120/m2 , the first 40m2 discounted.

So (€15000/120 )+40 = 165m2. Big Extension.

Still a lot to pay.

That's a fair size house not an extension. If you can afford an extension that size 15k can't be much of the overall building costs. Am I missing something

sydthebeat

Ray Palmer wrote: »

That's a fair size house not an extension. If you can afford an extension that size 15k can't be much of the overall building costs. Am I missing something

affordability has nothing to do with size..... can anyone afford a 10% tax on a construction project in todays climate????

not to mention the 13.5% tax on materials and services during the project and the 21% tax on professional services.

I suppose the OPs question as to how they come up with these figures has been answered.

Ray Palmer

sydthebeat wrote: »

affordability has nothing to do with size..... can anyone afford a 10% tax on a construction project in todays climate????

not to mention the 13.5% tax on materials and services during the project and the 21% tax on professional services.

I suppose the OPs question as to how they come up with these figures has been answered.

I have a different view to you so.
The guy refereed to a house costing 7k and this extension costing 15k. As that extension is house size in an urban area. The professional service people should have considered the council charge as part of the costs. As an overall cost it doesn't seem excessive. When working out costs all taxes/charges should be considered. The charge is not an extra it part of the cost point blank. Can't afford it, reduce the size until you can climate has nothing to do with it just simple project management.

sydthebeat

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I have a different view to you so.
The guy refereed to a house costing 7k and this extension costing 15k. As that extension is house size in an urban area. The professional service people should have considered the council charge as part of the costs. As an overall cost it doesn't seem excessive. When working out costs all taxes/charges should be considered. The charge is not an extra it part of the cost point blank. Can't afford it, reduce the size until you can climate has nothing to do with it just simple project management.

firstly the 7k reference is to development contributions in a different part of the country.

My point is that the dev contributions in this, and most cases are excessive and reflective of the lunatic celtic tiger times, when banks were throwing money at borrowers and no credence was considered about value. Of course it should be considered as it is the status quo.. but that doesnt mean its correct, fair or valid.

the charge IS an extra as it is not reflective in the value of the final project... ask any bank valuer. You cannot expect to add 10% to a sale price to cover development contributions when comparing similar properties. It simply DOES NOT EXIST as a value factor of a finished produce even though it is almost always included in mortgage repayments.

muffler

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The guy refereed to a house costing 7k and this extension costing 15k.

If you read the post again you will see that the house referred to is in a different part of the country entirely. The point being made there was how it didn't seem fair that a new house could be charged 7k in one county while an extension to a house is being charged 15k elsewhere. And that is a fair point to make.

Just so you know different PA's set different rates of contribution charges around the country. For example, here in Donegal the highest charge for a single house is €6,700 and there are no charges on domestic extensions.

Ray Palmer

sydthebeat wrote: »

firstly the 7k reference is to development contributions in a different part of the country.

My point is that the dev contributions in this, and most cases are excessive and reflective of the lunatic celtic tiger times, when banks were throwing money at borrowers and no credence was considered about value. Of course it should be considered as it is the status quo.. but that doesnt mean its correct, fair or valid.

the charge IS an extra as it is not reflective in the value of the final project... ask any bank valuer. You cannot expect to add 10% to a sale price to cover development contributions when comparing similar properties. It simply DOES NOT EXIST as a value factor of a finished produce even though it is almost always included in mortgage repayments.

My point is really simple it is the cost as you can't do it without paying the money. Not extra in the same way vat is not extra it just is part of the cost. Whether it is reflected in the sale price is irrelevant. Ranting about bankers and whether you think it is fair doesn't matter.

muffler wrote: »

If you read the post again you will see that the house referred to is in a different part of the country entirely. The point being made there was how it didn't seem fair that a new house could be charged 7k in one county while an extension to a house is being charged 15k elsewhere. And that is a fair point to make.

Just so you know different PA's set different rates of contribution charges around the country. For example, here in Donegal the highest charge for a single house is €6,700 and there are no charges on domestic extensions.

If you read my post you will see I did know it was in different places. The point I am making is really simple read above. Different councils have different rates I know and think it is a sensible model. I don't agree with you and that is as fair a point as any other. The fact one is a house and another is extension doesn't matter especial consider the size this extension would need to be at the rate stated.

harry21

rayjdav wrote: »

This imo is a very unfair statement. Everyone should, at least by now, know that contributions are an unavoidable part and parcel of the Planning system. I have done jobs in the past where I have informed the client of the pending contribution but have been ignored, with them telling me to keep drawing their "mansion" and on receipt of Planning, get an earful about the levy. No win situation from an agents point of view.:rolleyes:

Do you not agree that whoever drew up the plans could have informed the client of the charges involved. That way they would not have been a surprise!!! Thats all I was saying. It doesn't make sense that the client knew of the chrages, ignored them, and then was surprised

However, this is not a small extension like we were led to believe!! 165 sq.m extension is a whole lot of house by any standards.

Used to be the case here in Cork that the rate per sq.m was based on what services the dwelling required. i.e. lower rate if you did not use public water or drainage or both. Is that gone?

BryanF

harry21 wrote: »

Do you not agree that whoever drew up the plans could have informed the client of the charges involved. That way they would not have been a surprise!!! Thats all I was saying. It doesn't make sense that the client knew of the chrages, ignored them, and then was surprised

However, this is not a small extension like we were led to believe!! 165 sq.m extension is a whole lot of house by any standards.

Used to be the case here in Cork that the rate per sq.m was based on what services the dwelling required. i.e. lower rate if you did not use public water or drainage or both. Is that gone?

That still stands, contribution fees for water, foul, surface, the whole lot:76.19 per m2 in Cork CoCo. (the first 40msq of an extension is exempt)

muffler

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I don't agree with you and that is as fair a point as any other.

I consider the OP made a fair enough point that extensions can be charged at a rate of over 200% higher than the rate for a house in a different part of the country. You dont so we'll agree to disagree.

sydthebeat

Ray Palmer wrote: »

My point is really simple it is the cost as you can't do it without paying the money. Not extra in the same way vat is not extra it just is part of the cost. Whether it is reflected in the sale price is irrelevant. Ranting about bankers and whether you think it is fair doesn't matter. .

you dont seem to have read anything i posted, i never suggested this was something that couldnt be paid... i was simply expressing my frustration that its a cost involved in construction project that there is NO return of value on. The client gets NOTHING for the money, the banks DO NOT express this cost as part of the value of the completed project If anything its a major deterrent to development in an environment wheres the construction industry is on its knees.
Saying that its irrelevant in this era of negative equity is simply astounding... its everything but irrelevant!!!! Its like car sales depreciation for houses!

Therefore they shouldnt be hit with this tax for which there is no discernible service being supplied in return. It doesn't even go to the central exchequer. I have no problem with a contribution, within reason, being applied to a new dwelling where the council have supplied services and needs to recoup costs. But applying them to extension to existing homes is simply greedy and smacks of Zacchaeus-like tax collecting.

bwdbwd

I think we can safely assume that the figures are incorrect from the OP, unless of course the extension is 165m2, in that case to have never been informed of development fees was just careless.

South Dublin charge about €120 per meter sq and the first 40 are exempt for extensions

Ray Palmer

sydthebeat wrote: »

you dont seem to have read anything i posted, i never suggested this was something that couldnt be paid... i was simply expressing my frustration that its a cost involved in construction project that there is NO return of value on. The client gets NOTHING for the money, the banks DO NOT express this cost as part of the value of the completed project If anything its a major deterrent to development in an environment wheres the construction industry is on its knees.
Saying that its irrelevant in this era of negative equity is simply astounding... its everything but irrelevant!!!! Its like car sales depreciation for houses!

Therefore they shouldnt be hit with this tax for which there is no discernible service being supplied in return. It doesn't even go to the central exchequer. I have no problem with a contribution, within reason, being applied to a new dwelling where the council have supplied services and needs to recoup costs. But applying them to extension to existing homes is simply greedy and smacks of Zacchaeus-like tax collecting.

Maybe you don't understand what I said. Personal views on whether it is good are not don't really come into it. Talking in cold hard reality of costs your views are irrelevant the charge is part of the cost plain and simple. Whether you feel they get value for the cost is irrelevant it remains a cost whether the bank put a value on it or not. You don't like it and I don't particularlary like it but it is a cost. The coucil have to consider the cumlitive effect of extensions and strain on services but generally the calcs are based for new properties. This extension apparently is huge.

I still remember when nobody expected the cost of an extension to actually return the value increase on their property. That was always reality it was actually a strange thing when that changed.

Anyway as said the OP likely got something wrong by suggesting it was a modest extension and the apparent calculations suggest it is the size of a large 3 bed semi.

sydthebeat

Ray Palmer wrote: »

.....Personal views on whether it is good are not don't really come into it. .

:rolleyes:

i started my very post in this thread with

on a personal note, wiithout knowing anything about the particulars,

if they dont come into it, why challange me on them????

your point about it being a cost that has to be paid is something i am not debating, i never said it doesnt have to be paid. Im expressing my own personal view that its an unfair charge.

Now, you certainly do not have any position to tell me that my personal view is irrelevant... it may be to you (and bully to you!) but its not to me. On a practical matter, the fact that there is no return on value for this cost is certainly not irrelevant, and if you think it is you be in a poisition of financial security and again, bully to you.

Ray Palmer

sydthebeat wrote: »

:rolleyes:

i started my very post in this thread with



if they dont come into it, why challange me on them????

your point about it being a cost that has to be paid is something i am not debating, i never said it doesnt have to be paid. Im expressing my own personal view that its an unfair charge.

Now, you certainly do not have any position to tell me that my personal view is irrelevant... it may be to you (and bully to you!) but its not to me. On a practical matter, the fact that there is no return on value for this cost is certainly not irrelevant, and if you think it is you be in a poisition of financial security and again, bully to you.

You have a very strange idea of what a challenge is and how threads work as moderator. You challenged what I was saying not the other way around. I didn't respond to your personal view but stated that such a large extension is really large and you challenged how I saw it. You are challenging what I said and have ranted about the merits of it as a cost. You still don't get what I have stated is that it is a cost and as an overall build not that much and for some reason think your personal view is some how vital to this. It isn't, it is irrelevant. I am in the position to say that as this is a factual statement not what is your personal view about the merits of the charge. You are ignoring your own statements which I did challenge such as bank putting value on this cost, it being an extra cost it just is the cost. Again they are view but not based on reality.
It is not EXTRA as you can't build without it. Bank's valuation should consider value and cost is irrelevant. Your views on how this is not fair is fair enough but you are saying non factual things in the manner you are doing so.

rayjdav

harry21 wrote: »

Do you not agree that whoever drew up the plans could have informed the client of the charges involved. That way they would not have been a surprise!!! Thats all I was saying. It doesn't make sense that the client knew of the chrages, ignored them, and then was surprised

Most agents DO inform the client of pending contributions, but during the design stage, as the house gets bigger and bigger, also the contribution does pro-rata naturally. I dont believe that it is our responsibility, unless specifically asked, to inform the client at every single increase in size of their drawing to add up the additional associated cost involved. We are dealing with adults whom we can only assume dont need their hands held at every step.

I know irrelevant to an extent, but I added 120sqm extension to my house and my contribution all in was just under 2K. Granted I dont have the infrastructure associated with Dublin but I saw this as a "fair":rolleyes: levy, in the overall scheme of things....

Certain LA's would want to revisit their schemes given the state of the industry. No matter what the levy is, it is always a big deal, to most anyway, to part with this dead money. If it makes no difference to certain people and they can pay it and forget it, fair due's....

muffler

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You have a very strange idea of what a challenge is and how threads work as moderator. You challenged what I was saying not the other way around. I didn't respond to your personal view but stated that such a large extension is really large and you challenged how I saw it. You are challenging what I said and have ranted about the merits of it as a cost. You still don't get what I have stated is that it is a cost and as an overall build not that much and for some reason think your personal view is some how vital to this. It isn't, it is irrelevant. I am in the position to say that as this is a factual statement not what is your personal view about the merits of the charge. You are ignoring your own statements which I did challenge such as bank putting value on this cost, it being an extra cost it just is the cost. Again they are view but not based on reality.
It is not EXTRA as you can't build without it. Bank's valuation should consider value and cost is irrelevant. Your views on how this is not fair is fair enough but you are saying non factual things in the manner you are doing so.

(Mod hat on here) - people are free to express their own onions on this forum and can do so without the petty sniping contained in the above post. Making any further reference to anyone acting in their capacity as a moderator on this forum will result in your posting privileges being removed.

we can leave it at that.

guideanna

Thanks to those with constructive replies guys.

I don't know the exact size of the extension though i will check this with my friend i can't see it being 165 sq.m though and i also know that in building the extension they are also planning on knocking some existing area in the house so i wonder does this counter act against the new space if you get me?

I'm just thinking though, the house is a bungalow but because of the way the site slopes there is a basement at the back of the house, the extension is going on the back so i presume the basement is also being extended and therefore that would double the extension size as it would be based on two floors even tho the basement is not a living space? They use it as a garage/storage.

Do you think they could change the plans to close up access to the basement and just have it as part of the foundations and then not count it?

sinnerboy

guideanna wrote: »

Do you think they could change the plans to close up access to the basement and just have it as part of the foundations and then not count it?

Maybe. By negotiation with SDCC , best to take the agents advice. What does s/he say or do you know ?