Old apartment lease coming back to bite

Black_Fire

I am the director of a management company and I have had a meeting with a new apartment owner who expressed that the lease they signed from a previous owner has no mention of not being allowed to convert the attic space, specifically making changes to the roof structure, a percentage of which they do in fact own to our surprise. Myself and the other director are at odds over the conversion whereby I don't want to allow it and the other sees no problem as long as its done soundly in terms of an engineers report viewpoint. I just don't want to risk problems with the roof down the line.
The previous owner never had an opportunity to sign the new long lease we created about 6-7 years ago (post MUD act regulations) as they were deceased at that point and their property lay vacant from that point since recently bought from their family.
Our company solicitor hasn't been very clear cut with regards to informing us on the new owners legal standing as they haven't signed the newest lease and it gives me the feeling that we're exposed to the openness of the situation and that they may just go ahead with conversion without a clear cut right for us to object.
Of course the current lease would prevent this situation from emerging had they signed it upon the sale but its as if the past is coming back to haunt us on this one.
Any advise or direction would be very much appreciated.

CircleofLife

How long has it been since you have had a structural survey done of the roof? If this could be done as part of the process (between you and the new owners), and the proposed changes are proved to be okay structurally, then I would go with this. Going against whatever is or isn't in their lease may leave you open legally. That said, I have no experience in this area!

GarIT

Ask the apartment owner if he is willing to pay for a surveyor of the management company's choosing towards the end of the work in return for letting it go ahead with no hassle.

Sleeper12

Do they need planning permission.

It's important to note that the attic space can be converted for storage but it's against the building regulations to convert it to a bedroom

mick121

I'd say they could have problems regarding planning permission, fire regs etc

Lockedout2

When a person buys an apartment they usually buy an interest in a long lease say 999. When they sell the apartment they that lease.

So the rights to the property are contained within that lease.

What do you mean you have a new lease that has to be signed.

Black_Fire

CircleofLife wrote: »

How long has it been since you have had a structural survey done of the roof? If this could be done as part of the process (between you and the new owners), and the proposed changes are proved to be okay structurally, then I would go with this. Going against whatever is or isn't in their lease may leave you open legally. That said, I have no experience in this area!

Thank you for the reply.
I don't think we have had any report done in the last 15 years since I've been living here. I would be happy to see a report done actually since the roof is approx 35 years old, now that you said it. I'd still be very hesitant to allow progression though, even if an engineering report concluded the conversion would take place without issue as I think it is out of order that they won't fall in line to the 'current' lease and I don't like the feeling that they can walk over the rest us that have been adhering.

Black_Fire

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Do they need planning permission.

It's important to note that the attic space can be converted for storage but it's against the building regulations to convert it to a bedroom

It is their right to submit a planning application as the space is their property from what I'm told.

Sleeper12

Black_Fire wrote:

It is their right to submit a planning application as the space is their property from what I'm told.

I can't add to that as I just don't know but they can't use it as a bedroom.

Black_Fire

Sleeper12 wrote:

I can't add to that as I just don't know but they can't use it as a bedroom.

If a planning application is approved them I'm sure that it can be used as a living space. We may look at objections but what grounds we'll have I don't know.

Black_Fire

Lockedout2 wrote:

What do you mean you have a new lease that has to be signed.

Thank you for your input.
The more recent lease was drawn up after the MUD act regs came in where by it listed that structural changes must be a first approved by management however, their lease has no mention of such approval required.

ArnieSilvia

Why not let people live and do what they want with their attic? Is it jealousy? I could never comprehend all that "not allowed this not allowed that" nonsense with the management companies. Does it make any impact on other people living in the apartments?
After experiencing management companies and people attitudes in them (little people on high horse comes to mind) I decided to never be a part of Mgmt Co, like many others

ted1

Black_Fire wrote: »

CircleofLife wrote: »

How long has it been since you have had a structural survey done of the roof? If this could be done as part of the process (between you and the new owners), and the proposed changes are proved to be okay structurally, then I would go with this. Going against whatever is or isn't in their lease may leave you open legally. That said, I have no experience in this area!

Thank you for the reply.
I don't think we have had any report done in the last 15 years since I've been living here. I would be happy to see a report done actually since the roof is approx 35 years old, now that you said it. I'd still be very hesitant to allow progression though, even if an engineering report concluded the conversion would take place without issue as I think it is out of order that they won't fall in line to the 'current' lease and I don't like the feeling that they can walk over the rest us that have been adhering.

Is it not more out of line that you changed everbodies lease in the first place. ?

Sleeper12

Black_Fire wrote:

If a planning application is approved them I'm sure that it can be used as a living space. We may look at objections but what grounds we'll have I don't know.

In a house you can't get planning permission for a bedroom in the attic space as it's against the building regulations. I have don't know if it's the same for topics floor apartments but if they get permission to convert it most likely won't be for a bedroom.

surrender monkey

Any apartment lease I have seen is very specific in what is demised to the owner. This information is usually contained in a schedule in the lease. It must be a poorly drafted document. Have you brought the lease to a solicitor to get a legal opinion on it. I sincerely doubt that if the roof structure was damaged by the attic conversion that the owners would be able to pay for the repair. And if the management company allowed the atttic to be converted then I doubt the block policy would cover it either. I've never heard of a new lease being signed up to either! When you buy an a second hand apartment you buy the remaining term on the original lease you don't get a brand new lease.

touchdown77

surrender monkey wrote: »

I've never heard of a new lease being signed up to either! When you buy an a second hand apartment you buy the remaining term on the original lease you don't get a brand new lease.

The OP mentions the new long lease was after the MUD regulations so perhaps they signed new leases to reflect the changes?

Black_Fire

ted1 wrote:

Is it not more out of line that you changed everbodies lease in the first place. ?

I wasn't on as a director at that stage. Also lease required amendment as the MUD act came in to protect owners an management companies.

ted1

Black_Fire wrote: »

ted1 wrote:

Is it not more out of line that you changed everbodies lease in the first place. ?

I wasn't on as a director at that stage. Also lease required amendment as the MUD act came in to protect owners an management companies.

Your change in lease seemed to take away owners rights.

ted1

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Black_Fire wrote:

If a planning application is approved them I'm sure that it can be used as a living space. We may look at objections but what grounds we'll have I don't know.

In a house you can't get planning permission for a bedroom in the attic space as it's against the building regulations. I have don't know if it's the same for topics floor apartments but if they get permission to convert it most likely won't be for a bedroom.

You can provided thstvit meets planning regulations.

E.g fire doors, 8 ft head height for 2/3 of room etc

Black_Fire

surrender monkey wrote:

Any apartment lease I have seen is very specific in what is demised to the owner. This information is usually contained in a schedule in the lease. It must be a poorly drafted document. Have you brought the lease to a solicitor to get a legal opinion on it. I sincerely doubt that if the roof structure was damaged by the attic conversion that the owners would be able to pay for the repair. And if the management company allowed the atttic to be converted then I doubt the block policy would cover it either. I've never heard of a new lease being signed up to either! When you buy an a second hand apartment you buy the remaining term on the original lease you don't get a brand new lease.

surrender monkey wrote:

Any apartment lease I have seen is very specific in what is demised to the owner. This information is usually contained in a schedule in the lease. It must be a poorly drafted document. Have you brought the lease to a solicitor to get a legal opinion on it. I sincerely doubt that if the roof structure was damaged by the attic conversion that the owners would be able to pay for the repair. And if the management company allowed the atttic to be converted then I doubt the block policy would cover it either. I've never heard of a new lease being signed up to either! When you buy an a second hand apartment you buy the remaining term on the original lease you don't get a brand new lease.

New leases were drawn up after the MUD act regs came in. All residents were happy about the new leases as they all signed except for the deceased party of course who never had the opportunity but looking at this situation regarding their additional space, there would have been difficulties as there is now I'm sure. Current owners are looking to base their conversion efforts off the lease that was signed over. Our argument is that the sale is not complete until they sign the more recent lease.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

In a house you can't get planning permission for a bedroom in the attic space as it's against the building regulations. I have don't know if it's the same for topics floor apartments but if they get permission to convert it most likely won't be for a bedroom.

You can get planning for a bedroom in an attic. The popularity of attitc conversions alone over the last while should tell that. Not everyone gets planning I know but there is a lot of people with bedrooms in attic conversions and they aren't all doing it without planning.

Did a management Company AGM agree to amend the terms of the original lease and is a majority sufficient to do this?

If so, it would seem that everybodies lease is changed, including the apartment owned by the deceased member. It sounds bizarre that the management company would effectively negotiate different lease terms for the various apartments, which is what you say seems to have happened.

You need clear legal advice on the 'new lease' situation and what was done then.

If the new owners do in fact have rights to convert their attic space, you should not refuse them, but make asure you have guarantees regarding the structural integrity of the roof. I'm not sure what these would be but I imagine undertakings from suitably insured professionals would be the way to go.

the_syco

Black_Fire wrote: »

Our company solicitor

Perhaps ask your solicitor if the owners do have "rights" to the attic, does that also include upkeep of the roof?

Also, check if you can see what they bought?

Actually, the issue here might not be the case in point, but the other leaseholders who owned attic space and might not have realised that by agreeing to the new leases they might have unwittingly surrendered some of their property (their attic spaces) back to the Management company.

It seems really strange that the 'new leases' would have affected the ownership rights of the lesees and furthermore that they (and their mortgage holders) would have agreed to this.

The whole situation about the 'new leases' seems very strange. If you dont have clear answers from you own legal advisors you should get a second opinion.

antoinolachtnai

Black_Fire wrote: »

New leases were drawn up after the MUD act regs came in. All residents were happy about the new leases as they all signed except for the deceased party of course who never had the opportunity but looking at this situation regarding their additional space, there would have been difficulties as there is now I'm sure. Current owners are looking to base their conversion efforts off the lease that was signed over. Our argument is that the sale is not complete until they sign the more recent lease.

You need good legal advice here and fast. You would be embarking on a legally treacherous path by suggesting that the new owner’s title in the property is somehow deficient. If the apartment owner’s bank gets wind of this you may well end up in the High Court with damages and a costs bill to pay.

If you were going to try this bold and probably illegal manouver, the time was when the estate of previous owner was selling. It would have been very risky even then.

But that was the time when the management company solicitor should have raised his concerns. Why didn’t he?

If I were you I would let the guy proceed with his plan providing your insurers are OK with it and there is not too much impact on the development. At the end of the day you have to act in members’ interests, and this guy is a member.

I would also get the whole thing reviewed by another solicitor. The whole thing just doesn’t seem right.

surrender monkey

Black_Fire wrote: »

New leases were drawn up after the MUD act regs came in. All residents were happy about the new leases as they all signed except for the deceased party of course who never had the opportunity but looking at this situation regarding their additional space, there would have been difficulties as there is now I'm sure. Current owners are looking to base their conversion efforts off the lease that was signed over. Our argument is that the sale is not complete until they sign the more recent lease.

Yeah but why was this done. I've genuinely not seen it before? Plenty of apartments built in Ireland before MUDs and I e never come across owners having to executing a new lease. Was it done because there was no management comapany in the original documents. Did the management company have a solicitor draft the documents? If so go back to them. Were the fresh leases registered in the land registry? An owner derives their interest in the property from the lease that is lodged in the land registry. Is there a schedule to the original lease under the heading "the demised premises" if so that schedule should expressly state what was demised to the owner. It would often say Wording like ...."but excluding the roof spaces" ? Maybe the folks over in the legal forum would have pointers for you?

antoinolachtnai

The more I think about it the more difficult I think this would have been to do comprehensively. It isn’t enough to get the owners to sign to replace the lease. They have to have independent legal advice and the owners bankers also need to consider and approve the replacement lease.

In practice it would be very difficult to actually do this.

If the new lease in any way reduced the owners’ rights it would be very difficult for solicitors to advise owners to sign and especially if not everybody was going to sign up to the new rules.

The whole thing is mad.

Basically, when one owner was not in a position to react, because he was dying or deceased, the other owners got together and decided to appropriate his property (the roof space), without his agreement. And now you are obstructing the person who bought his property on the basis of this 'agreement'.

You need GOOD legal advice fast, to untangle this.

Franz Von Peppercorn

the_syco wrote: »

Perhaps ask your solicitor if the owners do have "rights" to the attic, does that also include upkeep of the roof?

Also, check if you can see what they bought?

Apartment owners almost never own the roof individually. This case is unusual. The roof keeps the rain off everybody not the top floor. Any fixes to it are management company issues. So ground floor apartments contribute to the upkeep.

In fact when buying an apartment - as my solicitor advised - you buy the internal space only.

In terms of attics the management company can control the attic, generally if there are is no individual access per appartment. In some cases the management company just owns that part of the attic over corridors etc.

The management company can object to a conversion by opposing any changes to the roof, I suppose. If there’s no chance of a window it is not much use. Is it worth it though? It might save the company money long run if as part of the conversion the roof is fixed.

the_syco

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Apartment owners almost never own the roof individually. This case is unusual. The roof keeps the rain off everybody not the top floor. Any fixes to it are management company issues. So ground floor apartments contribute to the upkeep.

Although apartment owners don't own the roof, they also would own the attic. So if they own the attic, I wonder how loose is the agreement that they bought?

jimmycrackcorm

Black_Fire wrote:

New leases were drawn up after the MUD act regs came in. All residents were happy about the new leases as they all signed except for the deceased party of course who never had the opportunity but looking at this situation regarding their additional space, there would have been difficulties as there is now I'm sure. Current owners are looking to base their conversion efforts off the lease that was signed over. Our argument is that the sale is not complete until they sign the more recent lease.

I don't see how anyone can be forced to sign a new lease unless the contract specifically mentions a mechanism to alter the terms.

I also don't see how you can use the MUD act to force this as:
A. the MC is not the developer
B. Presumably the property was sold to the previous owner before 2011
C. The current owner owns the roof.

It would seem to me practical to not object as if there are future issues, they will have the responsibility to sort them instead of the MC.

I think you'd be foolhardy to try take a legal action without a very clear case. There's a reason why the MUD isn't retrospective.

Lantus

Changing the primary contract lease is technically possible but would require massive legal processes.

This is the contract every unit owner signs when they buy a property.

To be changed it requires consent from every member and if I recall correctly a visit to court as per the mud act.

Every contract would need to be reassigned and the legal bill would be in the tens of thousands.

You cannot leave someone out.

To do this for an attic issue makes no sense. Are you sure your talking about the contract lease and not the articles of association?

Lantus

It's section 24. The court can direct changed to be made to legal documentation where disputes arise.

Did you get such a court order?

Metric Tensor

The apartment block almost certainly has a fire safety certificate. Any internal changes to any of the apartments make the building non-compliant with the fire safety certificate.

If the leasee makes changes he will be required to either get written confirmation from the fire officer that the fire safety certificate is still valid or obtain a new fire safety certificate for the entire building. He will also need to pay for any upgrades across the building to facilitate this new certificate.

This is completely separate from planning permission and could get very expensive.

He will be breaking the law if he makes material alterations that do not comply with the fire safety certificate - I'd imagine the management company will also bear some responsibility for allowing it.

Both parties here need to engage a construction consultant (engineer, architect, etc.)

The_Conductor

Deleted User wrote: »

Did a management Company AGM agree to amend the terms of the original lease and is a majority sufficient to do this?

If so, it would seem that everybodies lease is changed, including the apartment owned by the deceased member. It sounds bizarre that the management company would effectively negotiate different lease terms for the various apartments, which is what you say seems to have happened.

You need clear legal advice on the 'new lease' situation and what was done then.

If the new owners do in fact have rights to convert their attic space, you should not refuse them, but make asure you have guarantees regarding the structural integrity of the roof. I'm not sure what these would be but I imagine undertakings from suitably insured professionals would be the way to go.

It has to be unaminous- it cannot be a simple majority- and similarly- the management company cannot take away any rights that the current owner has in their lease.

OP- I'm not a solicitor- however, I firmly believe that if you choose to fight this- you are very likely to loose. You cannot impose a new lease on the person who has just bought the property- they have to agree to it- and if you were planning on imposing a change in the lease- it should have been done before the current owner purchased the unit.

Also- the owner may be entitled to do an attic conversion- without planning permission- depending on the nature of the conversion- providing it is in keeping with current building regs (and keep in mind- if they're not planning on making a formal bedroom- their requirements are a lot lower..........)

I'd suggest you work with them- and I'd also suggest you have a little chat with a solicitor and see what your options are- but I do not believe you have a foot to stand on here........... *I am not a solicitor and am not offering this advice in a professional capacity- please do not construe it as such.

Lantus

The_Conductor wrote:

It has to be unaminous- it cannot be a simple majority- and similarly- the management company cannot take away any rights that the current owner has in their lease.

It's more than just a gentleman's agreement. The primary contract lease is a major legal contractural document. Any change would need to be written by a suitably qualified legal team and solicitors would need to witness the signing of every new contract as they would of done the first time. Probably would need separate legal teams as omc and owners are separate entities in the contract. Some cost.

The op isn't clear but it sounds like a few paragraphs were knocked up on word and posted out.

You only need one owner to object and then your in court to get a ruling. Super expensive.

You did not have the consent of every owner to make this change and subject to your own legal advice I would say those changes are null and void and have zero standing.

The owner has a legally binding contract and I would be confident it would stand firm if challenged in court unless you can provide any information or clarity to counter.

If someone rocked up to my gaff with a new contract that said thou shalt not build on a Tuesday if laugh my head off.

Contracts cannot be unilaterally changed by one party and especially not to their benefit.

Did every apartment owner with an attic vote to approve having them taken away? Unlikely.

This is the stuff of nonsense.

The_Conductor

+1 to everything Lantus has said.
It is a modification to a legal document.
Everyone has to agree to it- and it then has to be effected by a legal modification of leases by a solicitor- who cannot act on behalf of both the management company and its members- and it has to be signed off on by all concerned.

Its pretty much impossible to do (I've tried in one development- over something less contentious than your idea).

Its a bit of a mess.

In this instance- I would work with the owner of the unit and do my best to try and ensure building regs were complied with- however, if planning is not a requirement (and it may not be)- suggesting you're going to appeal any decision is pointless- and moot.

SnakePlissken

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Do they need planning permission.

It's important to note that the attic space can be converted for storage but it's against the building regulations to convert it to a bedroom

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I can't add to that as I just don't know but they can't use it as a bedroom.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

In a house you can't get planning permission for a bedroom in the attic space as it's against the building regulations. I have don't know if it's the same for topics floor apartments but if they get permission to convert it most likely won't be for a bedroom.

I have no idea where you're gleaning this information from but it is wholly incorrect.

Planning permission can and will be granted for use of attic space as a bedroom/habitable space once a number of criteria is met, namely that at a minimum 2/3rds of the proposed space has a clear ceiling height of 2.4 metres.

There's a number of further stipulations concerning Part K and particularly Part B of the Building regulations, but to suggest that it is impossible to gain permission to use attic space as a bedroom is both misleading and groundless.

Lantus

SnakePlissken wrote:

Planning permission can and will be granted for use of attic space as a bedroom/habitable space once a number of criteria is met, namely that at a minimum 2/3rds of the proposed space has a clear ceiling height of 2.4 metres.

In most cases you don't even need planning. Unless the front of the property is altered or roof then just proceed.

The required ceiling heights are required to class the space as a room. Below this it's just a space and cannot be classified as a bedroom, or any type of room. It's not so much a planning issue but a physical constraint.

It's a simple enough change building wise with minimal building changes and regs. Some fire stuff to consider. A good solution where people need to expand. If done well will increase value to property and area as a whole.

touchdown77

OP, if the attic conversion goes ahead you'll need to consider the following

the apartment owner will need to prove that any changes are made in compliance with;

• Planning permission
• Fire regulations
• Building regulations

i.e. they will get an engineer/surveyor/architect to provide certification on each heading above

then as a director of the OMC, you'll need to ensure ensure the same as above, (but independent of the apartment owner) so the OMC will need to engage its own engineer/surveyor/architect to certify the work.
This will ensure that both parties i.e. apartment owner and OMC (i.e. all the other owners) are fully protected and the works are comply in each parties interest.

Gumbo

Planning Permission
Fire Safety Certificate
Disability Access certificate

All Required. Plus a letter of consent form the Building owner/Management company consenting to the works.

Lantus

kceire wrote:

All Required. Plus a letter of consent form the Building owner/Management company consenting to the works.

This would be the case if the lease prohibits such works.

If it denotes the attic as the owners space then omc consent is not necessarily required.

Sometimes the top floor unit owns the roof. Without seeing this lease and with only a few cursory interpretations the statements are generally correct but not necessarily applicable in this case.

Can the op provide more info on the supposed lease re- assignment and what it originally said.

It should contain several pages as well as definitions on the reserved and demised property near the start. Roof spaces and structure should be fairly well outlined.

Black_Fire

Thanks to each contributed here. I have asked the long lease holder to return their existing lease to us for inspection and I'm meeting with a past director to discuss the exact reason for the change of lease. They mentioned that there were actual proceedings to remove a previous management company from their post over a decade ago who in fact were the owners in the upper floor apartment, the subject of this thread. This explains how the attic space was delineated on the land registry. They were not maintaining the property correctly as such and the case ended up before the high court to change management company forcefully. They retained their lease as they did not agree to sign themselves in to the new management rules whereby the rest of the apartment owners did. That original lease therefore has been changed into the hands of the new owners who intend to proceed with the conversion. We'll have to seek more legal advise on this as it's an obvious mess. It seems they are within their rights to an extent but so are we, as the new management company, to stand firm to protect the overall structure from rogue conversions.

This is the kind of crap that puts people off living in apartments. Owner owns the attic and want to make use of its space but the managment company want to be awkward and interfere to stop the person making use of the valuable extra space that they own.

How about you just let the apartment owner work away on their own property rather than getting so worried about "what ifs". What evidence do you have that is making you think this could cause problems with the roof anyway, its just an excuse for trying to be awkward imo.

Melissa Flaky Tux

Melissa Flaky Tux wrote: »

How about you just let the apartment owner work away on their own property rather than getting so worried about "what ifs".

The OP is a director of the management company. They are supposed to think about the consequences and could be personally exposed if something happened and they were subsequently found not to have acted in the best interests of the company or whatever.

Lantus

Thanks for update blackfire. I think you've partially answered your own question.

If one (could of been more) members opt out of any lease change. Has it really been enacted?

I don't believe the high court ruling covered this, it looks like something extra that was attempted as a result.

Needs some good legal advice.

Franz Von Peppercorn

kceire wrote: »

Planning Permission
Fire Safety Certificate
Disability Access certificate

All Required. Plus a letter of consent form the Building owner/Management company consenting to the works.

Disability for a private apartment?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Melissa Flaky Tux wrote: »

This is the kind of crap that puts people off living in apartments. Owner owns the attic and want to make use of its space but the managment company want to be awkward and interfere to stop the person making use of the valuable extra space that they own.

How about you just let the apartment owner work away on their own property rather than getting so worried about "what ifs". What evidence do you have that is making you think this could cause problems with the roof anyway, its just an excuse for trying to be awkward imo.

Well obviously one mans floor is another mans ceiling so it can’t be as simple as a detached house.

It’s interesting how much more difficult it is for an attic conversion than a terraced house, or a semi detached though. Well from what I am reading.

em_cat

Black_Fire wrote: »

Thanks to each contributed here. I have asked the long lease holder to return their existing lease to us for inspection and I'm meeting with a past director to discuss the exact reason for the change of lease. They mentioned that there were actual proceedings to remove a previous management company from their post over a decade ago who in fact were the owners in the upper floor apartment, the subject of this thread. This explains how the attic space was delineated on the land registry. They were not maintaining the property correctly as such and the case ended up before the high court to change management company forcefully. They retained their lease as they did not agree to sign themselves in to the new management rules whereby the rest of the apartment owners did. That original lease therefore has been changed into the hands of the new owners who intend to proceed with the conversion. We'll have to seek more legal advise on this as it's an obvious mess. It seems they are within their rights to an extent but so are we, as the new management company, to stand firm to protect the overall structure from rogue conversions.

Sorry to just pop in here, but firstly (a) what is a "long leaseholder"?

Secondly (b) this issue falls under Property Contract Law which is extremely costly and is difficult to navigate without a really good PCL solicitor.

Lastly (c) the property in question, if it was originally owned by the OMC entity and then sold to a private buyer and the contracts where not updated and everything signed off via conveyancing, then the OMC is truly at fault and should not be pursuing the new owner to sign a new contract just because the OMC, for all intents and purposes screwed the pooch, it seems vexatious to me.

The OMC would be better off making sure that whatever restrictions/clauses that are in the original contract be adhered too.

Lord Glentoran

ArnieSilvia wrote: »

Why not let people live and do what they want with their attic? Is it jealousy? I could never comprehend all that "not allowed this not allowed that" nonsense with the management companies. Does it make any impact on other people living in the apartments?
After experiencing management companies and people attitudes in them (little people on high horse comes to mind) I decided to never be a part of Mgmt Co, like many others

Beggars on horseback. I've had enough dealings with a management company to ensure that when I sell my maisonette (ie, own front door, no common areas except grass and parking) I'll never own anything in the Republic again that has that encroachment on it.

Marcusm

Lantus wrote: »

In most cases you don't even need planning. Unless the front of the property is altered or roof then just proceed.

The required ceiling heights are required to class the space as a room. Below this it's just a space and cannot be classified as a bedroom, or any type of room. It's not so much a planning issue but a physical constraint.

It's a simple enough change building wise with minimal building changes and regs. Some fire stuff to consider. A good solution where people need to expand. If done well will increase value to property and area as a whole.

Exempt development does not apply to a multi unit property. Any “development” requires full planning permission.