269K - 1A Briarfield Grove

MarkAnthony

Link

I just thought I'd throw this up for anyone looking at the moment. I've no link to the vendor or EA; I just happen to live very close to it.

There are a huge amount of Pros to the location, but what I will say is that near it is a little cul-de-sac thing where I'm told had a history a few years back. Personally I've never had any issues but I've not wandered down there chatting to people either.

The attached apartment would easily pay the mortgage on this - subject to getting proper advice on tax.

Any questions about the immediate area feel free to ask.

athtrasna

Without clicking the link I'm guessing it's in Kilbarrack

MarkAnthony

athtrasna wrote: »

Without clicking the link I'm guessing it's in Kilbarrack

We're calling it South Sutton now.

Konata

This seems very cheap for a detached 3 bed with a separate unit? Cheap even compared to other properties in the Kilbarrack area (we went to see one on Roseglen Rd back a few weeks ago asking for 290k - 3 bed semi-detached). Do you think it's because of the area? It seems very close to the DART station which is obviously super handy but maybe there's a lot of people hanging around essentially your doorstep? Or even the 'history' of the cul de sac nearby? What exactly IS the history??

Gumbo

Looks really nice to be fair. I wonder what the Planning Situation is with the property though.

Edit - 1A got its permission for a 3 bedroom, 2 storey in 2000.
1999 - refused permission for 2 dwellings.

I don't see how this will pass a survey from the purchaser's engaged professional. It doesn't have planning permission and is in breach of the Building Control Act by the nature of the provision of a flat/apartment without a Fire Safety Certificate and possibly a DAC.

I can find that info in 5 mins, and that's without viewing the property, and the case files lodged with DCC or land registry etc
I'd say its cheap because of its planning issues.

Relatively easy fix though, provide a door between the 2 units
The ad states , own front door, it negates to state that its most likely around the side behind the side entrance gate.

MarkAnthony

Konata wrote: »

This seems very cheap for a detached 3 bed with a separate unit? Cheap even compared to other properties in the Kilbarrack area (we went to see one on Roseglen Rd back a few weeks ago asking for 290k - 3 bed semi-detached). Do you think it's because of the area? It seems very close to the DART station which is obviously super handy but maybe there's a lot of people hanging around essentially your doorstep? Or even the 'history' of the cul de sac nearby? What exactly IS the history??

Oddly no one hangs around the DART station, there's a little green area there and the kids don't even play football there. The world's friendliest DART station master is at that station - I've no idea if that has anything to do with it. There was literally a petition started when it was suggested he was getting moved. One of my wife's pals used to live here about 10-15 years ago and apparently you'd get some drinking there the odd time in the summer. We've had many a nice day since I've lived here and not a single 'teenagers picnic'. In fact come to think of it, I rarely even see a teenager! Not that I'mfor them I hasten to add!

I'm not exactly sure of the history, just that it used to be/is social housing and some colourful characters used to/do live there. Never any bother as far as I've been here (about 200m away), which is over a year now.

The entire area is young families and the kids are remarkably well behaved. Actually this end, nearer the DART has a few oldies too, where as it's more families at the Roseglen end. You probably know this from the visit but Roseglen is one end of Briarfield Road and Briarfield Grove is the other end.

kceire wrote: »

Looks really nice to be fair. I wonder what the Planning Situation is with the property though.

Edit - 1A got its permission for a 3 bedroom, 2 storey in 2000.
1999 - refused permission for 2 dwellings.

I don't see how this will pass a survey from the purchaser's engaged professional. It doesn't have planning permission and is in breach of the Building Control Act by the nature of the provision of a flat/apartment without a Fire Safety Certificate and possibly a DAC.

I can find that info in 5 mins, and that's without viewing the property, and the case files lodged with DCC or land registry etc
I'd say its cheap because of its planning issues.

Relatively easy fix though, provide a door between the 2 units
The ad states , own front door, it negates to state that its most likely around the side behind the side entrance gate.

I can't comment on that, but right enough it's cheap. 4 bed end of terrace was 272K there a while ago and a 5 bed detached (4 bed + attic really) on Roseglen was 364k last year.

ohlordy

Extension granted pp with conditions in 2004.
One condition being that only family can live in flat and it can never be sold separately, expressly to prevent a trend of similar extensions from happening.
Anyone know what the legal status of this condition would be for a new purchaser?

Gumbo

ohlordy wrote: »

Extension granted pp with conditions in 2004.
One condition being that only family can live in flat and it can never be sold separately, expressly to prevent a trend of similar extensions from happening.
Anyone know what the legal status of this condition would be for a new purchaser?

Most likely a "granny flat" extension. So when a buyer goes to buy it, there will be still out standing conditions attached, such as a permanent link between the 2. It should be rectified before any sale goes through, but it depends how "on the ball" the purchasers surveyor is.

DCC Plan Ref : 2306/04

Full planning permission sought for new single storey granny flat extension at side of No. 1A Briarsfield Grove, Kilbarrack, Dublin 5, new porch and canopy to front and new single storey extension and alterations to rear of existing house with new vehicle entrance gates off Greendatle Road.

Condition No. 5 States :

5. The granny flat shall be occupied only be relatives of the occupants of the main house. The site of the granny flat shall not be physically separated from the curtilage of the main house and the granny flat shall not be sold separately from the main house. REASON: To protect the residential amenities of the area and to prevent an excessive density of development.

EDIT - There doesn't seem to be a condition that specifically states that there should be a permanent link. Now a days, all granny flats granted carry this condition, so it might just pass.

ohlordy

The condition states that only family of residents of main house can live in flat.
Is this legally enforceable?
If the purchasers decide to rent it out to a third party could legal action be taken by planning authority to prevent this?
Would purchaser need to apply for change of use permission to be allowed rent it out?

Gumbo

ohlordy wrote: »

The condition states that only family of residents of main house can live in flat.
Is this legally enforceable?
If the purchasers decide to rent it out to a third party could legal action be taken by planning authority to prevent this?
Would purchaser need to apply for change of use permission to be allowed rent it out?

Is this legally enforceable? Yes, its legally enforceable but would be hard to prove otherwise. If someone was to make a complaint and the Plan Enf section investigate, they will ask for evidence that the person living there is directly related. That will close the case. But how you prove that may be difficult depending on who is actually living in the unit.

If the purchasers decide to rent it out to a third party could legal action be taken by planning authority to prevent this? Yes, see above.

Would purchaser need to apply for change of use permission to be allowed rent it out? Technically yes, but in my experience dealing with these matters, it will be refused.

The old "Granny Flat" use has been removed from the DCC Development Plan. It is now Ancillary Accomodation.
This is whats on all new "granny flat" applications as a condition :

[/3. The proposed ancillary family accommodation shall be incidental to the enjoyment of the principal dwelling on site. It shall not be separated from the principal dwelling by lease or sale. Once the accommodation is no longer required for ancillary accommodation purposes, it shall revert back to being part of the original family house. Reason: In the interests of the proper planning and development of the area. QUOTE]




From the Dublin City Development Plan
17.9.10 Ancillary Family Accommodation (see also sections 17.9.8 and 17.9.9)
Ancillary family accommodation refers to a sub-division/extension of a single dwelling unit to accommodate a member of an immediate family for a temporary period (e.g. elderly parent). It is also recognised that there may be circumstances other than age (i.e. disability or illness where an immediate relative may need to live in close proximity to their family). Dublin City Council will, in principle, favourably consider applications for such subdivision provided the planning authority is satisfied that:

■ There is a valid case, including details
of the relationship between the
occupant(s) of the main dwelling house
and the occupant(s) of the ancillary
family accommodation.
■ It is not a separate detached dwelling
unit, and direct access is provided to
the rest of the house.
■ There shall be no permanent
subdivision of the garden.
■ The accommodation shall revert back
to being part of the original family house
when no longer occupied by a member
of the family.

ohlordy

Thanks for that