HELP Retention planning for Extension not complying with original planning permission

Laura R

Husband and I are sale agreed on a house that we really really are keen on. Results of survey have just come back and issues flagged up in relation to side extension granny flat connected to main house

“The main observation on the deviation are the stairs on ground floor access to the granny flat with a separate door from the front. Generally it is expected that the granny flat should be ground and first floor, not on first floor and second floor as seen on site. This is a major concern as the floor plan presented to the planning office was refused with a stairs on ground floor leading to the flat with a separate entrance. It would appeared that the vendor did not comply with building the structure in accordance with the grant of planning. Also, the attic conversion in the main dwelling and the additional room seen on the granny flat at attic level were not shown on the plan at all”

In more normal circumstances, I understand that retention would be applied for to tidy up title. However, my question is what’s the likelihood of it being approved given it appears original planning was rejected for those very reasons and builder when ahead and did it anyways? Also, what is the usual timeline for such processes?

We will of course be seeking advice from solicitor in relation to this but coming here for some quick community advice to give us a sense of how bad this issue is, or otherwise. (For additional context we’re in the process of selling our place off the back of having gone sale agreed on this place and are worried now we might have no where to go to..)

Thanks in advance.

Donald Trump

Once you buy it, it becomes your problem. After 6 years they cannot enforce the planning regulations but that does not mean it has planning permission by default. It is still not in compliance and they could, for example, make bringing it into compliance a condition of some other planning permission your apply for later.

If you buy the place for cash and it has been there for more than 6 years and you'll never want to sell it or get other planning permission, it would be unlikely to affect you.

A bank might not give a mortgage for it. Doesn't affect you but might affect someone you later want to sell it to.

Ideal solution would have been to make the owner apply for retention first. That they didn't is probably an indication of something.

muffler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058285970/help-retention-planning-for-extension-not-complying-with-original-planning-permission

I'm confused. You say that the floor plan was refused yet planning was granted. Could you provide further clarification.

Am I right in thinking that this house has what is essentially a 3 storey extension (2 floors + attic) built to the side with its own access door and is being labelled a "granny flat"

How is access being provided between the parent house and the extension at ground floor and first floor levels?

Laura R

Thanks for the speedy reply. For additional context, the works were carried out approx 15 years ago. We need a mortgage for the purchase.

Laura R

Thanks for speedy response! There is both and entrance from a door within the main house to the granny flat area AND a front door entrance to the granny area. Essentially there are two front doors, one to main house, one to granny flat, and an internally connecting door too.

Owner was refused planning for the original drawings, the resubmitted and was approved subject to certain conditions, but it appears as though they went ahead and built to the original plans anyways. I’m struggling to see how council would approve a retention application if the owner willfully disregarded their original stipulations?!

Calahonda52

As post 3, what was planning granted for and how does it differ from what was built.

What follows may not be relevant but it worth considering as in the extreme case, if the survey missed it, it may become an issue with another purchaser survey if you were selling.

Does survey say it complies with Part B

While it doesn't seem to have made the survey, how is access provided to the attic spaces?

My concern is compliance with fire regs for what maybe now a 3 storey house

see loft conversions here: its attached also

130178_6636824a-c574-470a-ac3a-4e88b58292f1.pdf

b0efe-loft-conversion-leaflet

Its a complicated area, so maybe look at the text in TGD Part B, starting at page 57, loft conversions

100071_0f55fb77-96a3-4dd5-8b93-7648880296e9.pdf

steinbock123

At the end of the day, you’re buying somebody else’s problem which then becomes your problem.

I’d walk.

muffler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120289808#Comment_120289808

Ok, that makes sense. The separate entrance and possibly more worryingly (as pointed out by Calahonda52) the attic are major red flags. It appears that the owner built a self contained apartment/house on to the side of the existing house under the guise of a granny flat, flaunted the planning regulations and possibly building regulations and now wants to sell it as if everything was fine. Personally I wouldn't touch it unless it complies with all statutory regulations. People have to take responsibility for their actions and in this case the owner needs to sort out the paperwork.

With regards to getting retention it's hard to say. Different planning authorities have varying views on these matters and there are lots of variations to consider such as urban or rural location, sewage disposal, local development plan requirements etc etc. A blind guess on my part would be the retention could be granted for a granny flat on ground floor with no separate external door and first floor and attic rooms would be retained as a residential extension of the parent house with no access to same from the granny flat.

Tread carefully.

Del2005

Sounds like you need to start looking again. If they ignored the planning regulations what else have they ignored. Highly unlikely that a bank will issue a mortgage.

wildwillow

Many people put their house on the market and then need to apply for retention planning. Minimum three months before you can proceed.

In this case I would be wary of the planning being granted for the reasons already outlined. It is up to the vendor to put things right. The best advice you have got is walk away.

It is annoying that Estate agents aren't compelled to make sure that all the legal requirements for a sale are in place before accepting a property for sale.

This would weed out the problem you have and speed up closing.

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120289860#Comment_120289860

That's easy to say but harder in reality. Going sale agreed at a price that you are happy with can be very difficult. With Prices, interest rates and credit availability still increasing passing on a sale has lots of things to consider. Planning takes three months minimum. From today that is likely 2-3 rate rises away.

The question really for the OP is are they willing to accept the risk that regularising the planning for future sale could be difficult and expensive and if their own bank will lend to them with the status as it stands.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120289798#Comment_120289798

First step, do a planning search online. It's possible they already applied for and were refused retention.

It's likely that your solicitor- if they're reasonably competent, which is never guaranteed- will seek a qualification on title from the lender.

The lender will seek advice from their legal advisor who will- again, assuming they're reasonably competent- tell the lender It's a commercial decision. (There's no question that you'll own the property, the question is whether you'll be able to sell it for enough to repay the mortgage- so it's not a qualification on the actual title).

Being a commercial decision, what's the worst case scenario for the lender with their first legal charge?

I'd guess the worst case scenario for the bank is the house burns down, and can't be rebuilt as is because: not in compliance with planning. Someone else can say if it could be rebuilt as per permission actually granted.

Seems the attic rooms don't have permission, wouldn't be exempt, and so couldn't be rebuilt. Total floor area could be 40 square metres or more- at a €3k per square metre, that's €120k wiped off the value of your home and the banks security.

To me, that'd be a case of "don't walk, run", even if the lender would willing to risk is based on your LTV (seems unlikely).

And that's completely ignoring Fire Safety issues, as Calahonda mentions- which could potentially give your insurer the right (worst case scenario) to slowly extend their middle finger skywards in the event of a claim...

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120289714#Comment_120289714

For the sake of correct information. The part about 6 years is incorrect. A very misunderstood pieces of legislation. It's 7 years not 6, but that's besides the point. The really issue here is that the protection after 7 years may not apply here, an enforcement action could possibly take place.

The "7 year rule" applies to unauthorised development. But it's explicated excluded from planning conditions. If the extension approved was modified by conditions, which were ignored there is no time limitation on enforcement.