Studio / Granny Flat - Property Value

superd1978

Hi,

I am considering building a studio / granny flat in my garden, hopefully if all goes to plan, fully self contained with toilet etc. Can anyone advise if building something like this actually improves the price of the property as a whole i.e. if it costs 20K, is it likely to add that value to the property should i decide to sell down the road?

Thanks,

D

Tigger99

It's highly unlikely it would cost 20k but leaving that aside you need to look at the type of people that would buy your house and if a granny flat would be a benefit for them.

I'm in my thirties and it would be a turn off for me as it'd take away from the size of the garden. I wouldn't assume it'd add value at all to be honest.

Lumen

Are you intending to fully comply with planning and building regulations?

The answer to that will have a significant effect on the sort of buyers your property will attract.

This sounds like exactly the sort of development that is intended to be prohibited. The law is quite clear but its enforcement is weak and patchy.

I went sale agreed on a property a while back with an old shed which had been converted to a barely habitable, damp, cold, dangerous granny flat, and was advertised by the EA as a "mews". I pulled out after the survey. It subsequently sold for asking (or over, I've tried to forget). The most irritating aspect was that the council had inspected it and agreed with the owner that its development was exempted as a consequence of pre-dating planning regs, despite this being an obvious lie which the neighbours disputed.

Anyway, your best bet is to build what the law intends, i.e. non-habitable amenity space that increases your enjoyment of the property.

4ensic15

superd1978 wrote: »

Hi,

I am considering building a studio / granny flat in my garden, hopefully if all goes to plan, fully self contained with toilet etc. Can anyone advise if building something like this actually improves the price of the property as a whole i.e. if it costs 20K, is it likely to add that value to the property should i decide to sell down the road?

Thanks,

D

It may actually subtract from the value of the property. Very few potential buyers would want such a thing and so most would factor in the cost of removing some or all of it. Trying to get planning permission without an actual granny will also be difficult.
As a general rule extensions do not add the cost of building them to the value of the property. A good well done extension may add a portion of its cost to the value but a poor one can in fact be negative.
The three most important factors in the value of property are location, location and location. Once the price edges up on the going rate for a location buyers tend to lose interest on the basis they can buy in a better location for the same money.

superd1978

Thanks so much guys.... much appreciated

Gumbo

superd1978 wrote: »

Hi,

I am considering building a studio / granny flat in my garden, hopefully if all goes to plan, fully self contained with toilet etc. Can anyone advise if building something like this actually improves the price of the property as a whole i.e. if it costs 20K, is it likely to add that value to the property should i decide to sell down the road?

Thanks,

D

It will only improve the value as far as any other domestic shed will do. When it boiled down to you actually selling the property, all the structure will be is a glorified garden shed.

You will not get planning for a stand alone granny flat, and the planning regs will not allow sleeping in the shed.

Gumbo

Lumen wrote: »

Are you intending to fully comply with planning and building regulations?

The answer to that will have a significant effect on the sort of buyers your property will attract.

This sounds like exactly the sort of development that is intended to be prohibited. The law is quite clear but its enforcement is weak and patchy.

I went sale agreed on a property a while back with an old shed which had been converted to a barely habitable, damp, cold, dangerous granny flat, and was advertised by the EA as a "mews". I pulled out after the survey. It subsequently sold for asking (or over, I've tried to forget). The most irritating aspect was that the council had inspected it and agreed with the owner that its development was exempted as a consequence of pre-dating planning regs, despite this being an obvious lie which the neighbours disputed.

Anyway, your best bet is to build what the law intends, i.e. non-habitable amenity space that increases your enjoyment of the property.

The problem is that the planning authority has a particular statute of limitations with regards time frames that they can take action. Hence why the 7 year rule is posted about quite a lot, but in some cases it's 12 years etc

If it pre dated planning regs, then it must have been built pre 1963, and if the area of the shed was within planning limits, then its possible its only the use that is unauthorised. If the owner ceases the use during the investigation, then the planning authority will then have to walk away.

The problem with neighbours saying things, is that it then comes down to a he said, she said kind of argument and the enforcement section have to weigh up the cost of going to court against the chances of losing especially if the owner is willing to offer up a sworn affidavit.

A self contained unit attached to the main house would be the way to go if you were doing this.

Not sure how much actual value it would add but it would allow you to rent it out tax free and would make it attractive to many buyers who would do the same.

I have been keeping my eye out for this exact type of property myself as it would be ideal to be able to rent out the self contained unit earning up to 12k a year tax free but not actually have to share your home which I wouldn't like to do. I saw one very interesting one a while back but well out of my budget as it was a 5 bed roomed house with a fully self contained 2 bed apartment build on with its own access at the side (but with a door to the main house too so fell under rent a room scheme). It would have been possible to rent it for close to 1k a month due to location and size and would cover more than 3/4 of the mortgage on the full house but at the same time you would never have to cross paths with the people renting it from you. Would be a sweet set up.

Gumbo

Jedidiah Attractive Lens wrote: »

A self contained unit attached to the main house would be the way to go if you were doing this.

Not sure how much actual value it would add but it would allow you to rent it out tax free and would make it attractive to many buyers who would do the same.

I have been keeping my eye out for this exact type of property myself as it would be ideal to be able to rent out the self contained unit earning up to 12k a year tax free but not actually have to share your home which I wouldn't like to do. I saw one very interesting one a while back but well out of my budget as it was a 5 bed roomed house with a fully self contained 2 bed apartment build on with its own access at the side (but with a door to the main house too so fell under rent a room scheme). It would have been possible to rent it for close to 1k a month due to location and size and would cover more than 3/4 of the mortgage on the full house but at the same time you would never have to cross paths with the people renting it from you. Would be a sweet set up.

Just to be aware, that the entry to these self contained units are still through the main entrance of the main dwelling, so not 100% private. And most likely, renting is in breach of the planning conditions attached to the grant of permission for the unit in the first place.

here is one condition attached to a recent planning application I made on behalf of a client :

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

kceire

kceire wrote: »

Just to be aware, that the entry to these self contained units are still through the main entrance of the main dwelling, so not 100% private. And most likely, renting is in breach of the planning conditions attached to the grant of permission for the unit in the first place.

Not if they also have a separate side door which was the case in most of the places I have come across.

kceire wrote: »

here is one condition attached to a recent planning application I made on behalf of a client :

Its technically renting rooms in your own home so there is no lease. In any case I wouldn't be overly worried about what are basically unenforceable planning conditions.

In any case I doubt this is a stipulation in most cases, particularly as a lot of these would be internal conversions so planning would never have been required.

Edit: found a place similar to the place I came across before, a few of the houses in this particular estate appear to have self contained apartments to the rear, obviously conversions rather than building on. The previous ad also highlighted separate entrance for the apartment so it would be the same for this one. https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/11-woodhaven-merlin-galway/3135421

Gumbo

Jedidiah Attractive Lens wrote: »

Not if they also have a separate side door which was the case in most of the places I have come across.



Its technically renting rooms in your own home so there is no lease. In any case I wouldn't be overly worried about what are basically unenforceable planning conditions.

In any case I doubt this is a stipulation in most cases, particularly as a lot of these would be internal conversions so planning would never have been required.

Edit: found a place similar to the place I came across before, a few of the houses in this particular estate appear to have self contained apartments to the rear, obviously conversions rather than building on. The previous ad also highlighted separate entrance for the apartment so it would be the same for this one. https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/11-woodhaven-merlin-galway/3135421

If t doesn't have the internal connection then it is in breach of the planning conditions.

All granny flat extensions require planning. If it's an internal conversion then no planning required, then it's not a granny flat, just an additional bedroom inside.

You could in theory build to the rear under the exempted limits but it's very hard to get a granny flat to work layout wise.

kceire

kceire wrote: »

If t doesn't have the internal connection then it is in breach of the planning conditions.

The idea is to have both. A locked internal door means the rent falls under rent a room and is tax free (up to 12k) and a second external entrance means the person/people living in the flat don't have to come into the main house to come and go.

4ensic15

Jedidiah Attractive Lens wrote: »

Not if they also have a separate side door which was the case in most of the places I have come across.



Its technically renting rooms in your own home so there is no lease. In any case I wouldn't be overly worried about what are basically unenforceable planning conditions.

In any case I doubt this is a stipulation in most cases, particularly as a lot of these would be internal conversions so planning would never have been required.

Edit: found a place similar to the place I came across before, a few of the houses in this particular estate appear to have self contained apartments to the rear, obviously conversions rather than building on. The previous ad also highlighted separate entrance for the apartment so it would be the same for this one. https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/11-woodhaven-merlin-galway/3135421

It is only renting rooms in your own home from a tax point of view. From a planning point of view it is two separate dwellings. It has to be registered with the RTB and so amounts to creating a lease.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is only renting rooms in your own home from a tax point of view. From a planning point of view it is two separate dwellings. It has to be registered with the RTB and so amounts to creating a lease.

Very much open to interpretation imo. I would be retaining access to the flat, it's under the same roof and would have it's esb and gas part of the main dwelling and split the bills. It's simply renting a bed room and using another kitchen that I don't use.

4ensic15

Jedidiah Attractive Lens wrote: »

Very much open to interpretation imo. I would be retaining access to the flat, it's under the same roof and would have it's esb and gas part of the main dwelling and split the bills. It's simply renting a bed room and using another kitchen that I don't use.

You have been repeating this nonsense on several forums. If you are ever in a position to do it, see what the planners and the RTB tell you.

athtrasna

4ensic15 wrote: »

You have been repeating this nonsense on several forums. If you are ever in a position to do it, see what the planners and the RTB tell you.

Mod note

This is becoming a habit. Mods shouldn't have to pull you guys up on this repeatedly. Take it to pm or report posts but please don't take over threads with these squabbles. Thanks

superd1978

Thanks again for your time and responses here guys, very informative