Turning a house into a masionette

James 007

Has any person/landlord out there converted a first floor box room into a kitchen. I have put this up in the DIY section of boards but got little responses. The box room is currently a single bedroom and the room is located over the front door of the house.

The plan would be for me to take over the ground floor of the house giving me the front original sitting room as a bedroom, rear room is a family room leading out to the extended dining room and kitchen. I would already have a down stairs shower and toilet.

For the first floor the two large rooms would let out as one twin room and one double room or two twin rooms. The single box would be converted to a kitchen. Electric shower/bath tub/toilet already on the first floor and the attic would be used as a sitting room. Bills will be at a fixed rate.

What I would like to get is comments on how to run the water hot/cold to the box room for the sink, washing machine and also the drain run. Has anyone done this before. The room has a 4" vent on the wall for the cooker extract. Any thoughts welcome.

endacl

No suggestions as to the build. Just make sure you're not making it an entirely separate unit though, or you'll be stuck with tenants rather than licensees.

Subtle

OP, it sounds from the question like this job is too much for your DIY skills and you should be getting a plumber out to discuss and price the job. All water supplies are accessible in the attic - mains and hot etc. and bringing them down is straight-forward if necessary. As for the drain side of things, one would really need to see the situation to judge what's best routing-wise.

James 007

Subtle wrote: »

OP, it sounds from the question like this job is too much for your DIY skills and you should be getting a plumber out to discuss and price the job. All water supplies are accessible in the attic - mains and hot etc. and bringing them down is straight-forward if necessary. As for the drain side of things, one would really need to see the situation to judge what's best routing-wise.

Thanks for that. I can take the cold supply from the mains on the ground floor or from the watertank which is in part of the closed attic. Can I ask why would we have the hot supply feeding to the attic, is this an overfeed for water expansion etc. I think I also have a route for the sink/washing machine drain. Behind the dishwasher in the current kitchen there is a 1.5 inch drain pipe standing vertically for about 1m height. So the plan would be drop similar points from first floor bedroom to a horz 1.5 inch line under the first floor and aim to get to this point at ceiling level and then drop vertically down to behind the dish washer. I think it will be easy enough to do this.

4ensic15

The better way to convert is to make the largest upstairs room a kitchen living room and have the other rooms as box rooms. Planning permission is required and compliance with building regs will be necessary. You will have to submit drawings and have a project manager.

Subtle

James 007 wrote: »

Can I ask why would we have the hot supply feeding to the attic, is this an overfeed for water expansion etc

Doh! Sorry, I was asleep earlier! Anyway, it sounds like you're more on top of things than I thought. With drains routing though, just bear in mind that the simpler the better in case there are problems down the line etc.

mrslancaster

James 007 wrote: »

Has any person/landlord out there converted a first floor box room into a kitchen. I have put this up in the DIY section of boards but got little responses. The box room is currently a single bedroom and the room is located over the front door of the house.

The plan would be for me to take over the ground floor of the house giving me the front original sitting room as a bedroom, rear room is a family room leading out to the extended dining room and kitchen. I would already have a down stairs shower and toilet.

For the first floor the two large rooms would let out as one twin room and one double room or two twin rooms. The single box would be converted to a kitchen. Electric shower/bath tub/toilet already on the first floor and the attic would be used as a sitting room. Bills will be at a fixed rate.

What I would like to get is comments on how to run the water hot/cold to the box room for the sink, washing machine and also the drain run. Has anyone done this before. The room has a 4" vent on the wall for the cooker extract. Any thoughts welcome.

A friend did it and ended up with a really nice 1 bed flat. They made the box room the kitchen and removed the wall between the front bedroom and box room. The back bedroom and bathroom stayed the same. They divided the front entrance to keep it completely separate and rented it with no problems. They didn't have the attic converted though and I've no idea about the planning side of things.

From what I've read on different threads, there's different rules about keeping it separate and keeping it as part of the original house when it's for rental. Lots of great information and help on here - good luck

Gumbo

You may have some planning issues.
You will have building regulation issues by creating a kitchen upstairs which is a room that fire can start in more rapidly. You will now have 2 of these rooms in one dwelling.

Ensure fire safety provisions are out in place.

It may appear to be a sub division to the planning authority and that means they can open enforcement action if no planning is granted.

Also Fire Prevention Officers May get involved if a complaint is received.

Technically possible once done correctly.

the_syco

James 007 wrote: »

For the first floor the two large rooms would let out as one twin room and one double room or two twin rooms. The single box would be converted to a kitchen.

Would said single room (that will become the kitchen) be over the main entrance/exit? Would this be against any fire rule?

James 007

the_syco wrote: »

Would said single room (that will become the kitchen) be over the main entrance/exit? Would this be against any fire rule?

I dont think there is a rule on this, but I will check the Regs to be sure.

Glass fused light

James 007 wrote: »

Thanks for that. I can take the cold supply from the mains on the ground floor or from the watertank which is in part of the closed attic. Can I ask why would we have the hot supply feeding to the attic, is this an overfeed for water expansion etc. I think I also have a route for the sink/washing machine drain. Behind the dishwasher in the current kitchen there is a 1.5 inch drain pipe standing vertically for about 1m height. So the plan would be drop similar points from first floor bedroom to a horz 1.5 inch line under the first floor and aim to get to this point at ceiling level and then drop vertically down to behind the dish washer. I think it will be easy enough to do this.

Drinking water is only drinking water if pulled directly form the public water main, dont pulling a kitchen tap off the water tank.

handlemaster

Cant see OP getting planning approval for this

James 007

Glass fused light wrote: »

Drinking water is only drinking water if pulled directly form the public water main, dont pulling a kitchen tap off the water tank.

Your right, I suppose when I say pull it off the water tank I mean the supply the feeds into the watertank. The alternative is to take it from the supply feeding into the house at the open/close valve.

James 007

handlemaster wrote: »

Cant see OP getting planning approval for this

I'm just wondering do you actually need planning permission for this or not. Building Control may need to the change of use of the bedroom to a kitchen as do your insurance company. Do you have any information pointing to where planning permission is required.

handlemaster

James 007 wrote: »

handlemaster wrote: »

Cant see OP getting planning approval for this

I'm just wondering do you actually need planning permission for this or not. Building Control may need to the change of use of the bedroom to a kitchen as do your insurance company. Do you have any information pointing to where planning permission is required.

Of course you need planning . If not every landlord would be doing it.

4ensic15

James 007 wrote: »

I'm just wondering do you actually need planning permission for this or not. Building Control may need to the change of use of the bedroom to a kitchen as do your insurance company. Do you have any information pointing to where planning permission is required.

Planning and Development Act, 2000
3.—(1) In this Act, “development” means, except where the context otherwise requires, the carrying out of any works on, in, over or under land or the making of any material change in the use of any structures or other land.




(3) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this section, the use as two or more dwellings of any house previously used as a single dwelling involves a material change in the use of the structure and of each part thereof which is so used.

Doop

What you are describing is a sub-division therefore you will most likely need to apply for a fire safety cert. Get some professional advice form a architect/ Building Surveyor/ engineer. Its more more than a hodge podge DIY job.

James 007

4ensic15 wrote: »

Planning and Development Act, 2000
3.—(1) In this Act, “development” means, except where the context otherwise requires, the carrying out of any works on, in, over or under land or the making of any material change in the use of any structures or other land.




(3) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this section, the use as two or more dwellings of any house previously used as a single dwelling involves a material change in the use of the structure and of each part thereof which is so used.

Thanks for that, I should of checked it myself. So planning is required and also a fire cert with regards the material change.

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-dublin-fire-rescue-and-emergency-ambulance-service-fire-safety-legislation/faq#Which%20developments%20require%20a%20Fire%20Safety%20Certificate

Spanish Eyes

The Government should be actively encouraging this type of division of a dwelling. It seems to be very prevalent in the UK.

Imagine if a householder who is getting on in years (like meself!) has enough space downstairs, and converted upstairs to a self contained apartment. Householder stays in the same area, has company in the house, and a tax free income on Rent a Room. It might also keep rents down somewhat to the maximum annual tax free amount too. Win win.

I wish the Housing Department would think outside the box. If planning and fire regs are required, that's ok, but this kind of thing is not actively encouraged at all. I would go so far as to say some incentives should be offered to those who would willingly house others in their own homes.

Ah well, may as well dream on.

_Kaiser_

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The Government should be actively encouraging this type of division of a dwelling. It seems to be very prevalent in the UK.

Imagine if a householder who is getting on in years (like meself!) has enough space downstairs, and converted upstairs to a self contained apartment. Householder stays in the same area, has company in the house, and a tax free income on Rent a Room. It might also keep rents down somewhat to the maximum annual tax free amount too. Win win.

I wish the Housing Department would think outside the box. If planning and fire regs are required, that's ok, but this kind of thing is not actively encouraged at all. I would go so far as to say some incentives should be offered to those who would willingly house others in their own homes.

Ah well, may as well dream on.

I disagree - and to clarify, I refer to the idea itself here, not the OP's specific example.. to me it comes across as a cynical attempt to take advantage of the current rental crisis by knocking together a separate "apartment" in a house not designed for it, and little better than the shoving of multiple beds into rooms not designed to accommodate them.

We need proper housing and apartment stock.. not DIY shortcuts.

If you want to rent rooms in your house then there's existing rules/structures to allow you to do so.

Doop

Doop wrote: »

What you are describing is a sub-division therefore you will most likely need to apply for a fire safety cert. Get some professional advice form a architect/ Building Surveyor/ engineer. Its more more than a hodge podge DIY job.

It's not a subdivision once the op keeps a common front door it's the same house, the person is he rents to is simply renting a room from him but happens to have use of a kitchen and bathroom that the op chooses not to use regularly.

handlemaster wrote: »

Of course you need planning . If not every landlord would be doing it.

This thread has nothing to do with LLs, the op is asking a question about altering his private residence. If he invites a guest to stay that changes nothing in this respect.

doolox

It has no interest in providing an increase in the rent a room scheme or converting family homes into 1 bed apartments.

It would lose too much tax revenue if it allowed and expansion of the rent a room scheme or loosened the restrictions pertaining to it.

4ensic15

Achilles Uptight Thankfulness wrote: »

It's not a subdivision once the op keeps a common front door it's the same house, the person is he rents to is simply renting a room from him but happens to have use of a kitchen and bathroom that the op chooses not to use regularly.

Tell that to the planners. Two dwellings would be created. The Planning Act deals specifically with such a situation.
It would also devalue the house by the cost of de-converting it. No bank will mortgage whilst it is in two units. It is an unwise thing to do. Aside from all the hassle with planning, extra insurance costs, extra maintenance and repairs and having to register with the RTB, the quality of life with a tenant stomping around upstairs would not be great.

Mrs OBumble

4ensic15 wrote: »

the quality of life with a tenant stomping around upstairs would not be great.

Whereas the quality of life with upstairs empty and unused (because the older person cannot climb the stairs) and with less income (ie no rent from upstairs) is so much better?

The planning laws are because the middle classes dread having to share their neighbourhoods with people who don't live the same way they do. Everyone needs their own little box, and all the little boxes need to be the same. Two kitchens in one house? Horrors .. can't have that.

There should be nothing wrong with making better use of existing housing stock, in a country with such low density as we have.

4ensic15

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Whereas the quality of life with upstairs empty and unused (because the older person cannot climb the stairs) and with less income (ie no rent from upstairs) is so much better?

The planning laws are because the middle classes dread having to share their neighbourhoods with people who don't live the same way they do. Everyone needs their own little box, and all the little boxes need to be the same. Two kitchens in one house? Horrors .. can't have that.

There should be nothing wrong with making better use of existing housing stock, in a country with such low density as we have.

The rooms upstairs can be let as they are. Tax free. Better use of the housing stock would be enabling elderly people to move to more suitable, smaller accommodation and letting families live in the house.

James 007

4ensic15 wrote: »

Tell that to the planners. Two dwellings would be created. The Planning Act deals specifically with such a situation.
It would also devalue the house by the cost of de-converting it. No bank will mortgage whilst it is in two units. It is an unwise thing to do. Aside from all the hassle with planning, extra insurance costs, extra maintenance and repairs and having to register with the RTB, the quality of life with a tenant stomping around upstairs would not be great.

Unfortunately for myself it is getting increasingly difficult to get a good apartment for a good rental price. I'd only covert it for piece of mind having a place where I can stay permanently. If I were then to sell it I would convert it back to its original bedroom. I know there would be a headache with the planning permission/insurance etc but sometimes you just need to somehow secure your own space.

Gumbo

James 007 wrote: »

I'm just wondering do you actually need planning permission for this or not. Building Control may need to the change of use of the bedroom to a kitchen as do your insurance company. Do you have any information pointing to where planning permission is required.

Building control will tell you to go get planning and come back to them with a Commencement Notice, Fire Cert and DAC

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

Tell that to the planners. Two dwellings would be created. The Planning Act deals specifically with such a situation.
It would also devalue the house by the cost of de-converting it. No bank will mortgage whilst it is in two units. It is an unwise thing to do. Aside from all the hassle with planning, extra insurance costs, extra maintenance and repairs and having to register with the RTB, the quality of life with a tenant stomping around upstairs would not be great.

Register with the RTB? The RTB have absolutely nothing to do with this situation, the op can freely walk upstairs in his house as he pleases. This is no different to a granny flat, in fact this is even more a part of the same house than a granny flat. There is nothing but a home owner and his guest (licensee).

kceire wrote: »

Building control will tell you to go get planning and come back to them with a Commencement Notice, Fire Cert and DAC

I think his point is who is going to find a planning issue inside a house? Im not condoning it in the slightest but doing stuff without planning is common all over the country from what I've seen. Again I'm not saying anyone should ignore planning just making the point about what happens.

4ensic15

Achilles Uptight Thankfulness wrote: »

Register with the RTB? The RTB have absolutely nothing to do with this situation, the op can freely walk upstairs in his house as he pleases. This is no different to a granny flat, in fact this is even more a part of the same house than a granny flat. There is nothing but a home owner and his guest (licensee).

If it is a separate dwelling , even a granny flat has to be registered.

See Section 25

25.—(1) This Part does not apply to a tenancy of a dwelling where the conditions specified in subsection (2) are satisfied if the landlord of the dwelling opts, in accordance with subsection (3), for this Part not to apply to it.

(2) Those conditions are—

(a) the dwelling concerned is one of 2 dwellings within a building,

(b) that building, as originally constructed, comprised a single dwelling, and

(c) the landlord resides in the other dwelling.

(3) A landlord's opting as mentioned in subsection (1) shall be signified in writing in a notice served by him or her on the tenant before the commencement of the tenancy.

Spanish Eyes

4ensic15 wrote: »

The rooms upstairs can be let as they are. Tax free. Better use of the housing stock would be enabling elderly people to move to more suitable, smaller accommodation and letting families live in the house.

Fine, but surely the homeowner is liable to income tax on the entire rent for the house in that scenario?

Anyway, from what I have seen a great number of ordinary terraced and semis in London have been converted to flats. Doesn't seem to be an issue there, as it is very common to see.

I just cannot see why the upstairs, or downstairs in a person's home is not incentivised these days to be converted into a self contained unit. Nor will planning allow a habitable cabin in often huge back gardens either. But there must be some logic that I am missing.

A basement self contained flat in some of those older villas in SCD qualify for RAR scheme, but not in ordinary suburbia because the flat would be upstairs

4ensic15

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Fine, but surely the homeowner is liable to income tax on the entire rent for the house in that scenario?


A basement self contained flat in some of those older villas in SCD qualify for RAR scheme, but not in ordinary suburbia because the flat would be upstairs

The owner should sell and move to smaller accommodation. It is far too difficult to do it. RAR has nothing to do with planning. It is a tax issue. Trying to convert a building which has been constructed for one use into something else is fraught with problems. Just because something is done in London doesn't mean it is a good idea or should be done here. People died to throw the English out of this country and their house conversions with them they left us with the worst slums in Europe which took 50 years to clear out.

Spanish Eyes

4ensic15 wrote: »

The owner should sell and move to smaller accommodation. It is far too difficult to do it. RAR has nothing to do with planning. It is a tax issue. Trying to convert a building which has been constructed for one use into something else is fraught with problems. Just because something is done in London doesn't mean it is a good idea or should be done here. People died to throw the English out of this country and their house conversions with them they left us with the worst slums in Europe which took 50 years to clear out.

Ok, I understand your tone of bitterness now, glad that's cleared up :P

There often isn't suitable smaller sized housing available for one or two older people, such as a bungalow in many parts of Dublin. It doesn't make sense for someone in advanced years to move to somewhere they are not familiar with either. There is security in knowing your neighbours and community and it is tiresome and difficult to start all over again. Plus, there are significant costs and hassles involved with moving too.

If there are regulations in place for such conversions I really do not see a problem. But sorry, it sounds that for you, the Government should provide everything from scratch for those who need housing. That will take another twenty years, and in the middle of it we may get another recession.

And the RAR is a significant tax saving measure which provides shelter for those needing it. It most certainly HAS to do with planning, since only rooms in the owner's house qualify except for.... the basement flats in the bigger houses around the city, they qualify for RAR (provided owner lives in the same property). Any comment on that? Ah sure just keep the proletariat out of any of that kind of mullarkey right!

4ensic15

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Ok, I understand your tone of bitterness now, glad that's cleared up :P

There often isn't suitable smaller sized housing available for one or two older people, such as a bungalow in many parts of Dublin. It doesn't make sense for someone in advanced years to move to somewhere they are not familiar with either. There is security in knowing your neighbours and community and it is tiresome and difficult to start all over again. Plus, there are significant costs and hassles involved with moving too.

If there are regulations in place for such conversions I really do not see a problem. But sorry, it sounds that for you, the Government should provide everything from scratch for those who need housing. That will take another twenty years, and in the middle of it we may get another recession.

And the RAR is a significant tax saving measure which provides shelter for those needing it. It most certainly HAS to do with planning, since only rooms in the owner's house qualify except for.... the basement flats in the bigger houses around the city, they qualify for RAR (provided owner lives in the same property). Any comment on that? Ah sure just keep the proletariat out of any of that kind of mullarkey right!

The basement flats qualify for RAR but they still need planning. The legal regime for downsizing and the associated hassles should be addressed rather than trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

If it is a separate dwelling , even a granny flat has to be registered.

See Section 25

25.—(1) This Part does not apply to a tenancy of a dwelling where the conditions specified in subsection (2) are satisfied if the landlord of the dwelling opts, in accordance with subsection (3), for this Part not to apply to it.

(2) Those conditions are—

(a) the dwelling concerned is one of 2 dwellings within a building,

(b) that building, as originally constructed, comprised a single dwelling, and

(c) the landlord resides in the other dwelling.

(3) A landlord's opting as mentioned in subsection (1) shall be signified in writing in a notice served by him or her on the tenant before the commencement of the tenancy.

A kitchen does not = a separate dwelling. There is no separate dwelling. There is upstairs and down stairs in the same house.

No granny flat falls under the RTB either, I see it claimed here once in a while it in reality it is unenforceable. In order for the RTB to have jurisdiction you need exclusive use. A granny flat with a door between the owner and the licensee where the owner can enter when he pleases and use the facilities is obviously not exclusive use. The ops position even more so, do you really think a situation where the owner simply has to walk up the stairs in the house to to use the bathroom means it's anything other than the upstairs of the same house or that the person renting has anything even related to exclusive use?

If you want to be absolutely sure just keep the same electricity meter: game set and match that it's that same dwelling.

4ensic15

Achilles Uptight Thankfulness wrote: »

A kitchen does not = a separate dwelling. There is no separate dwelling. There is upstairs and down stairs in the same house.

No granny flat falls under the RTB either, I see it claimed here once in a while it in reality it is unenforceable. In order for the RTB to have jurisdiction you need exclusive use. A granny flat with a door between the owner and the licensee where the owner can enter when he pleases and use the facilities is obviously not exclusive use. The ops position even more so, do you really think a situation where the owner simply has to walk up the stairs in the house to to use the bathroom means it's anything other than the upstairs of the same house or that the person renting has anything even related to exclusive use?

A second kitchen means a second dwelling. That has been held time and again by the courts. Just because the owner can walk in does not mean the RTB will see it that way. The situation on the ground is examined.
Why build a kitchen at all if the owner is going to be walking in and using a bathroom? Why not just share the existing kitchen?

The clear intention of the o/p is to create 2 dwellings. The o/p has kitchen and bathroom downstairs and the tenant has kitchen and bathroom upstairs.
There are thus 2 dwellings operating distinctly from each other. Planning permission and compliance with building regs will be needed as well as registration with the RTB.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

A second kitchen means a second dwelling. That has been held time and again by the courts. Just because the owner can walk in does not mean the RTB will see it that way. The situation on the ground is examined.
Why build a kitchen at all if the owner is going to be walking in and using a bathroom? Why not just share the existing kitchen?

Why have more than one bathroom, why have more than one bedroom??? Obviously because it's more comfortable for those living there.

What if you put two kitchens down stairs? How would you claim a seperate dwelling then? Yet there are two kitchens.

James 007

4ensic15 wrote: »

The owner should sell and move to smaller accommodation. It is far too difficult to do it. RAR has nothing to do with planning. It is a tax issue. Trying to convert a building which has been constructed for one use into something else is fraught with problems. Just because something is done in London doesn't mean it is a good idea or should be done here.

My god... I never taught I would get such a response, sell my house simply because I want to convert it to a maisonette type setup. Far too difficult, I wouldn't think so thats why we have planning. Fraught with problems, do tell us all these problems.....bloody hell some responses here.

4ensic15

James 007 wrote: »

My god... I never taught I would get such a response, sell my house simply because I want to convert it to a maisonette type setup. Far too difficult, I wouldn't think so thats why we have planning. Fraught with problems, do tell us all these problems.....bloody hell some responses here.

I am saying it is far too difficult to sell and move to more suitable accommodation.

Converting a house designed as one dwelling into 2 means that the house will devalue despite the spending. It will be more expensive to insure. It will carry heavy fire risks. There will be noise issues. An owner occupier could have an unwanted tenant forced on him if the tenant refuses to budge and runs the landlord around through the RTB. Trying to get proper ventilation into a box bedroom which is to be used as a kitchen will be messy. There will have to be 2 electrical systems and 2 gas systems. A conversion will cost about 30k for a unit which will not be a proper apartment.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

I am saying it is far too difficult to sell and move to more suitable accommodation.

Converting a house designed as one dwelling into 2 means that the house will devalue despite the spending. It will be more expensive to insure. It will carry heavy fire risks. There will be noise issues. An owner occupier could have an unwanted tenant forced on him if the tenant refuses to budge and runs the landlord around through the RTB. Trying to get proper ventilation into a box bedroom which is to be used as a kitchen will be messy. There will have to be 2 electrical systems and 2 gas systems. A conversion will cost about 30k for a unit which will not be a proper apartment.

There is no need for two electrical systems and two gas systems as it will all be one dwelling. You aren't ignoring simple facts. Common entrance, no exclusive use, single gas and electrical system = single dwelling with a licensee renting a room and the use of a kitchen and bathroom that the owner chooses to use rarely.

There is no way possible that having a common front door where he owner can simply walk up the stairs could ever ever even come closing to falling under the RTB. You are trying to discourage the op with incorrect information and misinformed opinion.

4ensic15

Achilles Uptight Thankfulness wrote: »

There no need for two electrical systems and two gas systems as it will all be one dwelling. You aren't ignoring simple facts. Common entrance, no exclusive use, single gas and electrical system = single dwelling with a licensee renting a room and the use of a kitchen and bathroom that the op chooses to use rarely.

There is no way possible that having a common front door where he owner can simply walk up the stairs could ever ever even come closing to falling under the RTB. You are trying to discourage the op with incorrect information and misinformed opinion.

What you are describing is not a maisonette. The o/p wants to create two distinct units.

Gumbo

Maybe the OP should confirm if they want 2 separate units here.
By definition, 2 maisonettes would be considered 2 separate units. If the OP wants to split a house into masonettes then technically he wants 2 separate units and maisonettes are specifically mentioned in Technical Guidance Document Part B (Fire Safety).

But he may be mixing the terms here and still want only the one unit but something similar to a granny flat scenario.

4ensic15

The o/p began this as a DIY query. He was mostly concerned with plumbing. It doesn't seem to me that he is entirely clear as to what he is doing from a planning point of view. If he is using the attic as living space there may also be fire safety issues on the ground floor.

James 007

kceire wrote: »

Maybe the OP should confirm if they want 2 separate units here.
By definition, 2 maisonettes would be considered 2 separate units. If the OP wants to split a house into masonettes then technically he wants 2 separate units and maisonettes are specifically mentioned in Technical Guidance Document Part B (Fire Safety).

But he may be mixing the terms here and still want only the one unit but something similar to a granny flat scenario.

Your right, I suppose I shouldnt use the term maisonette. I have lived in a masionette in Hendon, London so I am well aware of what defines a masionette.

Our requirement would be to have only one door entrance as to any house. Yes there is nothing to stop me from going upstairs, but there is no requirement for me to do so. I will have shower room/toilet/kitchen/sitting room and bedroom all downstairs. Equally there will be no requirement for a tenant to use downstairs apart from entering/leaving the house. They will have all the same upstairs at first floor/attic level.

Nox001 is right, people here seem to want to complicate things. In fact the neighbouring house seems to be converted into a similar setup. Whether the kitchen is in the box room or not, I wouldnt be so sure of, whether the owner got planning or not, again I wouldnt be so sure of.

4ensic15

James 007 wrote: »

Nox001 is right, people here seem to want to complicate things. In fact the neighbouring house seems to be converted into a similar setup. Whether the kitchen is in the box room or not, I wouldnt be so sure of, whether the owner got planning or not, again I wouldnt be so sure of.

You are creating 2 dwellings. That has planning implications. A quick check on the planning files will show whether the neighbour has planning or not. It may have been done years ago. Some residents associations are vigilant in ensuring that there isn't any conversion of houses. There is a serious issue with the attic only having a spiral stairs access. If it is used as anything other than a store, there are major fire safety implications. Getting landlord insurance for that, on full disclosure will be difficult, if not impossible.
Nox001 has form on this forum in advocating a view of letting and planning not shared by the authorities. He does not appear to have any experience of his own other than organising house shares.
maybe it is a case of when the news is bad, shoot the messenger.

Gumbo

James 007 wrote: »

Your right, I suppose I shouldnt use the term maisonette. I have lived in a masionette in Hendon, London so I am well aware of what defines a masionette.

Our requirement would be to have only one door entrance as to any house. Yes there is nothing to stop me from going upstairs, but there is no requirement for me to do so. I will have shower room/toilet/kitchen/sitting room and bedroom all downstairs. Equally there will be no requirement for a tenant to use downstairs apart from entering/leaving the house. They will have all the same upstairs at first floor/attic level.

Nox001 is right, people here seem to want to complicate things. In fact the neighbouring house seems to be converted into a similar setup. Whether the kitchen is in the box room or not, I wouldnt be so sure of, whether the owner got planning or not, again I wouldnt be so sure of.

Based on this I would say you are straddling the line from a planning perspective. Technically you have created 2 separate spaces but they have not been sub divided.

From a building control point of view, my experience is that they will leave alone as it’s still one dwelling as such.

Is the attic converted?

4ensic15

kceire wrote: »

Is the attic converted?

The o/p has already said the attic is converted and accessed by a spiral stairs and that he intends the attic to be a living room.
The property appears to be Victorian. Is it a protected structure?

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

maybe it is a case of when the news is bad, shoot the messenger.

But your "news" is wrong not bad. Again you mention LL insurance, the op will not be a LL in the setup he describes it's absolutely impossible for him to be anything other than an owner occupier with a licensee. It's is one dwelling, simple as that. How can you possibly claim that it's two dwellings with a common entrance, no wall or even door separating upstairs and down starts, single esb and gas supply, single water supply etc.

The person would be simply renting a room and have use of a spare kitchen and bathroom. The op can walk up the stairs when ever he wants and use the kitchen or bathroom. The person has absolutely zero exclusive use. There is nothing in this that gets close to meeting the requirements for a tenancy.

I hate this type of scaremongering and incorrect advice trying to put people off making a bit of cash from their property while minimising how much they actually have to interact with the guest they allow stay with them.

antoinolachtnai

Tell the insurer there are two kitchens and then see how that goes.

Del2005

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Ok, I understand your tone of bitterness now, glad that's cleared up :P

There often isn't suitable smaller sized housing available for one or two older people, such as a bungalow in many parts of Dublin. It doesn't make sense for someone in advanced years to move to somewhere they are not familiar with either. There is security in knowing your neighbours and community and it is tiresome and difficult to start all over again. Plus, there are significant costs and hassles involved with moving too.

If there are regulations in place for such conversions I really do not see a problem. But sorry, it sounds that for you, the Government should provide everything from scratch for those who need housing. That will take another twenty years, and in the middle of it we may get another recession.

The elderly person can just rent an upstairs room with zero issues or costs. Why would they want to spend several thousand Euro on a conversion when they can get the same benefits for €0 by just letting the room.

4ensic15

Achilles Uptight Thankfulness wrote: »

But your "news" is wrong not bad. Again you mention LL insurance, the op will not be a LL in the setup he describes it's absolutely impossible for him to be anything other than an owner occupier with a licensee. It's is one dwelling, simple as that. How can you possibly claim that it's two dwellings with a common entrance, no wall or even door separating upstairs and down starts, single esb and gas supply, single water supply etc.

The person would be simply renting a room and have use of a spare kitchen and bathroom. The op can walk up the stairs when ever he wants and use the kitchen or bathroom. The person has absolutely zero exclusive use. There is nothing in this that gets close to meeting the requirements for a tenancy.

I hate this type of scaremongering and incorrect advice trying to put people off making a bit of cash from their property while minimising how much they actually have to interact with the guest they allow stay with them.

It all sounds very innocent but many an individual has got themselves into a royal mess when planners and environmental inspectors or the RTB come calling. The reality is that there will be two households living separate and apart. The fact that someone can go from one area to another is not decisive. The RTB looks at the situation on the ground and may well refuse to accept a licencee situation.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

It all sounds very innocent but many an individual has got themselves into a royal mess when planners and environmental inspectors or the RTB come calling. The reality is that there will be two households living separate and apart. The fact that someone can go from one area to another is not decisive. The RTB looks at the situation on the ground and may well refuse to accept a licencee situation.

The RTB have no more grounds to rule it a tenancy than someone renting a room of the owner where there is no upstairs kitchen. no way on earth can they rule it a tenancy no Mather how much you say so. One front door, one esb and gas supply, no wall or even door seperating the licensee from the owner, the licensee has to walk through the owners downstairs section of the house to enter is own and has no private access or no exclusive use. You really are trying to argue an impossibility.

There are situations where the house owner doesn't even live in the house but maintains access to the houses where no tenancy is created never mind when he lives in the house and can walk up the stairs anytime he wants.

Even if it was a granny flat with its own separate entrance but a common locked door no tenancy would be created (especially if the owner maintains his access to the granny flat, cooks his dinner there sometimes, uses the bathroom, keeps a common esb and gas supply).