Turning a house into a masionette

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).

4ensic15

Achilles Uptight Thankfulness wrote: »

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).

The RTB specifically reserves the right to decide for itself. The RTB is pro tenant. the legislation (section 25) specifically envisages a granny flat situation. The purpose of installing a second kitchen is to facilitate the creation of 2 households. The RTB has ruled that a shared house where the owner does not live does not create a series of individual licences. In Zhang occasional visits by the owner were not enough for the owner to be considered as living in the dwelling.

4ensic15

4ensic15 wrote: »

The RTB specifically reserves the right to decide for itself. The RTB is pro tenant. the legislation (section 25) specifically envisages a granny flat situation. The purpose of installing a second kitchen is to facilitate the creation of 2 households. The RTB has ruled that a shared house where the owner does not live does not create a series of individual licences. In Zhang occasional visits by the owner were not enough for the owner to be considered as living in the dwelling.

Yet they even state on their website that a person can be a licence in a situation where the LL doesn't live there but maintains access and they don't have exclusive use.

I agree the RTB are pro tenant but there is no way possible a person in the ops situation would ever be considered a tenant by the RTB so it's irrelevant.

4ensic15

Achilles Uptight Thankfulness wrote: »

Yet they even state on their website that a person can be a licence in a situation where the LL doesn't live there but maintains access and they don't have exclusive use.

I agree the RTB are pro tenant but there is no way possible a person in the ops situation would ever be considered a tenant by the RTB so it's irrelevant.

There are many ways possible the RTB can rule there is a tenancy. A licence might happen in situations where there is serviced accommodation. Student residences for example. There are very few landlords who have successfully argued for a licence. The RTB deals in reality not fantasy.

James 007

So to summarize so far:

1. Planning is required, at a guess 3 months is this correct
2. Building control point of view, no fire cert required, is this correct
3. Electricity to the main meter. Separate RCB for cooker switch
4. Plumbing drains for sink run at ground floor ceiling level to current dishwasher 1m standpipe, 1.5 inch. Drain for sink and washing machine
5. Cold water supply either from ground floor incoming mains or mains at water tank level in attic down to first floor
6. Hot water supply, again it probably could be taken from the hot press, I need to check
7. Cooker to extract to existing vent, so locate in vicinity of vent
8. RTB vs licencees, I suppose I'm not too concerned. I know the tenants I require
9. Additional smoke alarms
10. Perhaps an upgrade to the door/frame is required, need to check Part B

4ensic15

If the attic is in use as living accommodation, there has to be fireproof stairs the whole way down to the ground.

Gumbo

James 007 wrote: »

So to summarize so far:

1. Planning is required, at a guess 3 months is this correct
2. Building control point of view, no fire cert required, is this correct
3. Electricity to the main meter. Separate RCB for cooker switch
4. Plumbing drains for sink run at ground floor ceiling level to current dishwasher 1m standpipe, 1.5 inch. Drain for sink and washing machine
5. Cold water supply either from ground floor incoming mains or mains at water tank level in attic down to first floor
6. Hot water supply, again it probably could be taken from the hot press, I need to check
7. Cooker to extract to existing vent, so locate in vicinity of vent
8. RTB vs licencees, I suppose I'm not too concerned. I know the tenants I require
9. Additional smoke alarms
10. Perhaps an upgrade to the door/frame is required, need to check Part B

1. Possibly depending on exactly what you want to do.
2. Fire cert will depend on exactly what type of works you carry out. If you creat 2 units then a fire cert will be required.

lawred2

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

4ensic15 wrote: »

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

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. .

Yerra would you stop chatting sh!!e!

James 007

4ensic15 wrote: »

If the attic is in use as living accommodation, there has to be fireproof stairs the whole way down to the ground.

Yes, I forgot this one, a bit of work to get this one right, I'll add to the list.

James 007

kceire wrote: »

Fire cert will depend on exactly what type of works you carry out. If you creat 2 units then a fire cert will be required.

I'm only putting a kitchen in a box room, however the staircase to the attic will also need to be included, so I would think the fire cert will be required, I will check with building control.

Glass fused light

James 007 wrote: »

I'm only putting a kitchen in a box room, however the staircase to the attic will also need to be included, so I would think the fire cert will be required, I will check with building control.

10. Plus self closing fire doors on all doorways off the staircase?