Retention Permission for Driveway?

MJohnston

Hello, bit of a quandry here that we need help with. We're selling our house (in Dublin 7) at the minute, buyers have queried for planning permission for the front garden having been opened up into a driveway (this is a small terraced house, 'front garden' is the size of 1 single car).

Problem is, when we bought the property (2 years ago), neither our surveyor nor our solicitor flagged this to us that permission was necessary for that kind of thing. We were first time buyers, plus the neighbourhood is absolutely swimming with properties where this has been done, so we didn't even think to check into whether that kind of thing would need planning permission.

Anyway, point is, when we bought, the garden had already been converted to a driveway, and we didn't receive any planning permission certs or anything to this nature.

So, the question is, does anyone have some hints as to what we need to do in order to sort out, I dunno, maybe Retention permission, or something like that, for this? Something that sorts out the issue so a sale can proceed.

For further context, I had a look at Google Streetview, which lets you pull up older images than it shows by default - for our property it has a photo from 2009 showing the driveway already converted and in place. I have a hunch it has been that way for a long time prior to this also too, no proof though.

So we're not worried about DCC taking enforcement action against us, we just don't want this holding up a sale.

Any advice greatly welcomed!

Stanford

Generally conversion of a domestic area to a hard surfaced top for car parking for not more than 2 cars is considered exempted development provided the height is generally the same height of the surrounding surface

MJohnston

Stanford wrote: »

Generally conversion of a domestic area to a hard surfaced top for car parking for not more than 2 cars is considered exempted development provided the height is generally the same height of the surrounding surface

The opening of the front wall is the bit that wouldn't be exempted though, I believe? I think that's the point of contention here anyway.

Stanford

True, OP can always ask the Local Authority for a Section 5 Declaration stating that the development is exempt but, to be honest, the only true peace of mind comes with an application for Retention or the issue will always plague you if you ever want to re-sell, see Section 5 form attached, there really isn't much work required between a Section 5 and Full Retention.

Stanford

Section 5 Declaration

Widening the access point is not exempt. If it was a garden with a wall and a gate, and is now just an open driveway you need retention permission. Same if it used to be a one-car driveway and is now a two-car driveway. You'll also need somebody to draw up plans. Shop around for the quotes as some places take the absolute pi**. One crowd wanted €1200+VAT.

Gumbo

Stanford wrote: »

Section 5 Declaration

No point lodging a Section 5.
It requires planning.

While it may be outside the enforcement action period, it will and can stop a sale going through as the property is not planning compliant.

I’ve done a few in Cabra, D7 over the years and they seem to get permission once not over the DCC development plan max of 3.6m in width.

Gumbo

Deleted User wrote: »

Widening the access point is not exempt. If it was a garden with a wall and a gate, and is now just an open driveway you need retention permission. Same if it used to be a one-car driveway and is now a two-car driveway. You'll also need somebody to draw up plans. Shop around for the quotes as some places take the absolute pi**. One crowd wanted €1200+VAT.

Was that just the fee?
What about the costs, like newspaper, application fee, OS maps etc?

ELM327

If it's been there since 2009, surely it is outside the limitations and the OP need not worry about recourse?
And therefore retention should be granted. Or am I missing something?

JimmyMW

ELM327 wrote: »

If it's been there since 2009, surely it is outside the limitations and the OP need not worry about recourse?
And therefore retention should be granted. Or am I missing something?

Just because its outside the statute of limitations does not mean it automatically should or will receive planning permission, there is a big difference between planning compliance and being outside the time limits of enforcement

ELM327

JimmyMW wrote: »

Just because its outside the statute of limitations does not mean it automatically should or will receive planning permission, there is a big difference between planning compliance and being outside the time limits of enforcement

Yes I understand, hence my question.
If there is going to be no enforcement (time limit) and they don't grant retention, what happens??

kceire

kceire wrote: »

Was that just the fee?
What about the costs, like newspaper, application fee, OS maps etc?

Just the fee for doing the drawings. Rest of it was extra, roughly €300 total, I think.

Gumbo

ELM327 wrote: »

Yes I understand, hence my question.
If there is going to be no enforcement (time limit) and they don't grant retention, what happens??

They have to reinstate the original layout.

Gumbo

Deleted User wrote: »

Just the fee for doing the drawings. Rest of it was extra, roughly €300 total, I think.

App fee €102
Maps €80
Newspaper €200

So yeah there or there abouts.
I assume the original fee including printing, site notice erection etx

MJohnston

Thanks for all the advice people!

Just on the same topic - is there any way to check whether a property ever had to have the access widened?

I ask this because the vast majority of houses on our street do not have any kind of front wall (some have front fences or iron railings), and the ones that do have them seem to have built them recently, rather than being an original part of the property. I've been wondering whether there was no permission sought from the previous owners because they never required it.

Also - does anyone know how long the requirement for planning permission to widen access has existed?

Gumbo

MJohnston wrote: »

Thanks for all the advice people!

Just on the same topic - is there any way to check whether a property ever had to have the access widened?

I ask this because the vast majority of houses on our street do not have any kind of front wall (some have front fences or iron railings), and the ones that do have them seem to have built them recently, rather than being an original part of the property. I've been wondering whether there was no permission sought from the previous owners because they never required it.

Also - does anyone know how long the requirement for planning permission to widen access has existed?

Planning search facility on the local councils website.

MJohnston

kceire wrote: »

Planning search facility on the local councils website.

No, that's not what I mean, sorry I wasn't clear - I mean, is there a way to know whether the property originally had an access that needed to be widened? Or whether the house was constructed without a front wall?

There doesn't seem to be any planning application in the Dublin City Council system

sydthebeat

MJohnston wrote: »

is there a way to know whether the property originally had an access that needed to be widened? Or whether the house was constructed without a front wall?

thats not a very clear question.... obviously if it was widened them someone deemed it necessary to widen.
however if your asking was it originally built with a wide entrance then thats another question altogether.

for "if it was built without a front wall"... talk to neighbours who have been there from the beginning.... otherwise go to the local council and order the particular planning file for viewing.

by any chance is the public road outside your house less than 4.0 m wide?

TheBoyConor

look at the ones that have walls. If there are a good portion of them that have old walls that are all of the same type of basic construction then it is probably that the terrace was built with all the houses having front walls.

JimmyMW

ELM327 wrote: »

Yes I understand, hence my question.
If there is going to be no enforcement (time limit) and they don't grant retention, what happens??

kceire wrote: »

They have to reinstate the original layout.

As Kceire said the original will need to be reinstated to satisfy the purchasers solicitor. Alternatively find another purchaser and hope their solicitor does not spot the need for the retention planning, however they would want to be massively incompetent to miss a refused retention planning permission

my3cents

I'd be looking at the kerb edges. Often changes without planning permission don't have a drop kerb that goes with the width of the drive.

Charlie-Bravo

You could offer to the purchasers to rebuild the wall for them but they'll say they want a drive way!! Solicitors love this stuff and push the onus on the vendor to have the paperwork right.

Review this with a Chartered Building Surveyor about seeking a letter stating that it's statute-barred under the relevant section of the 2000 Act, and see if that satisfies everyone?

The purchaser's solicitor should then be advising on future changes regarding unauthorised development.

Alkers

If you're selling, in the current market I would just say sold as is and let the purchasers take it or leave it - chances are they will go ahead with the sale for what is realistically a minor enough problem

Gumbo

astrofluff wrote: »

You could offer to the purchasers to rebuild the wall for them but they'll say they want a drive way!! Solicitors love this stuff and push the onus on the vendor to have the paperwork right.

Review this with a Chartered Building Surveyor about seeking a letter stating that it's statute-barred under the relevant section of the 2000 Act, and see if that satisfies everyone?

The purchaser's solicitor should then be advising on future changes regarding unauthorised development.

Even if statue barred the site is in a state of unauthorised planning status. The bank may not allow draw down.

It also means the house is sterile from any exempted development. It cannot enjoy any other exemption.

Simona1986 wrote: »

If you're selling, in the current market I would just say sold as is and let the purchasers take it or leave it - chances are they will go ahead with the sale for what is realistically a minor enough problem

Once the Surveyor picks up on it the I don’t think it can be avoided unless they are cash buyers. Some people say it’s a simple problem but I’ve been refused for driveway widening on a couple of jobs over the last few years.

Alkers

kceire wrote:

Once the Surveyor picks up on it the I don’t think it can be avoided unless they are cash buyers. Some people say it’s a simple problem but I’ve been refused for driveway widening on a couple of jobs over the last few years.

We bought our house with a driveway which didn't have permission. It had been there about ten years and DCC had dished the footpath despite there being no permission.

Surveyor raised it as an issue and we informed our solicitor of this (as there were a few other issues with the house we wanted to negotiate with the sellers on) but subsequently told our solicitor we didn't mind as the time for an enforcement action had passed, a number of neighbours had received planning for similar driveways, even more neighbours had similar driveways without planning and I was happy to submit my own retention application once we bought.

If you get a survey done, which notices the planning issue, this typically doesn't get submitted to the solicitor or bank?

leinster93

Simona1986 wrote: »

We bought our house with a driveway which didn't have permission. It had been there about ten years and DCC had dished the footpath despite there being no permission.

Surveyor raised it as an issue and we informed our solicitor of this (as there were a few other issues with the house we wanted to negotiate with the sellers on) but subsequently told our solicitor we didn't mind as the time for an enforcement action had passed, a number of neighbours had received planning for similar driveways, even more neighbours had similar driveways without planning and I was happy to submit my own retention application once we bought.

If you get a survey done, which notices the planning issue, this typically doesn't get submitted to the solicitor or bank?

Just wondering, what needs to be submitted with a retention application? I'm in a similar position as the op.

BryanF

leinster93 wrote: »

Just wondering, what needs to be submitted with a retention application? I'm in a similar position as the op.

Planning application
Site map
Add in paper
Fill out & Erect site notice
Site layout
Detail of entrance plan/section
Maybe front elevation of house depending on Local authority
Planning fee
Cover letter
Sometimes photos help

If site is at a street corner / junction you could be in trouble
Precedence is your friend

antiskeptic

MJohnston wrote: »

Problem is, when we bought the property (2 years ago), neither our surveyor nor our solicitor flagged this to us that permission was necessary for that kind of thing

.

You might get onto your surveyor and see will he sort the application for you. And if he does you won't make a claim against his professional indemnity insurance?

I know many surveyors merely stamp on the floors and knock on the walls. Nevertheless, missing out on something as obvious as that qualifies as negligence. It's not so much the size of the claim against him which will worry him but having a claim registered against him at all.

doug82

kceire wrote: »

They have to reinstate the original layout.

Firstly the op doesn’t know for sure that there was a wall, never mind what it looked like. Secondly, a refusal of retention doesn’t obligate an applicant to reinstate anything

JimmyMW

doug82 wrote: »

Firstly the op doesn’t know for sure that there was a wall, never mind what it looked like. Secondly, a refusal of retention doesn’t obligate an applicant to reinstate anything

If the OP wants to legitimately sell the property it does. The only other option in the event of a refusal, is to apply for permission to alter the existing works to the councils satisfaction but not necessarily to reinstate the original

doug82

JimmyMW wrote: »

If the OP wants to legitimately sell the property it does. The only other option in the event of a refusal, is to apply for permission to alter the existing works to the councils satisfaction but not necessarily to reinstate the original

Are you suggesting that if a person is refused retention, they can go ahead and construct what was there before?

JimmyMW

doug82 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that if a person is refused retention, they can go ahead and construct what was there before?

Reinstatement, absolutely.

doug82

JimmyMW wrote: »

Reinstatement, absolutely.

Under what provisions of the legislation?

JimmyMW

doug82 wrote: »

Under what provisions of the legislation?

Are you seriously trying to suggest that if retention permission for works completed is refused that the owner is stuck in some kinda limbo where they cannot reinstate the original works. Hence having a completely unsaleable property due to the un-regularized nature of the planning permission which they have no opportunity to regularize?

evolving_doors

Can't believe in a sellers market that buyers would be nitpicking like that. What's their problem, they're getting a driveway for Pete's sake!

Council doesn't care especially if people all over the street have set precedent for donkeys years. Apply for declaration 5 OP.. if the council don't oppose it then what's the problem.

Estate agent is acting the mickey, sound out anther one.

I suspect the buyers might be playing off sellers in the same area against each other.

From a buyers point of view it's a loose loose position by querying something so frivolous.

Outcome - seller has to spend weeks putting things back or getting retention. Meantime buyer is risking other bidders coming in or themselves finding another property.
Potentially they are potentially doing themselves out of a driveway.

I reckon they're just looking for a fast discount (cost of reinstatement!).

JimmyMW

evolving_doors wrote: »

Can't believe in a sellers market that buyers would be nitpicking like that. What's their problem, they're getting a driveway for Pete's sake!

If the solicitor picks up on it, and s/he has, it cannot be ignored and essentially the property is un-mortgageable, therefore you are restricted to cash buyers only, this has nothing to do with the estate agent.

doug82

JimmyMW wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to suggest that if retention permission for works completed is refused that the owner is stuck in some kinda limbo where they cannot reinstate the original works. Hence having a completely unsaleable property due to the un-regularized nature of the planning permission which they have no opportunity to regularize?

I'm just trying to understand the legal basis for your opinion. I'm not aware of any exemption that would apply.

Gumbo

evolving_doors wrote: »

Can't believe in a sellers market that buyers would be nitpicking like that. What's their problem, they're getting a driveway for Pete's sake!

Council doesn't care especially if people all over the street have set precedent for donkeys years. Apply for declaration 5 OP.. if the council don't oppose it then what's the problem.

Estate agent is acting the mickey, sound out anther one.

I suspect the buyers might be playing off sellers in the same area against each other.

From a buyers point of view it's a loose loose position by querying something so frivolous.

Outcome - seller has to spend weeks putting things back or getting retention. Meantime buyer is risking other bidders coming in or themselves finding another property.
Potentially they are potentially doing themselves out of a driveway.

I reckon they're just looking for a fast discount (cost of reinstatement!).

I think you have many different regulations mixed up.
What is a declaration 5?
What will the council object to?

doug82 wrote: »

I'm just trying to understand the legal basis for your opinion. I'm not aware of any exemption that would apply.

Based on my experience of retention applications, if its refused, they usually come with a condition that the issue is to be reinstated within 6 months, 12 months or whatever the LA put in there.

Had 2 in 2018 that were refused and both got told to reinstate within 6 months.