Room to Improve (v2)

Our architect informed us that it wouldnt apply as the house was in sufficient enough condition to not be considered derelict (which I would agree with as it is liveable, though FREEZING in the evening at moment) and also was not vacant for long enough prior to our purchase. Though given these episodes I will re-raise the potential grants available to us with the architect and QS to see if we can look to spend more with a view to save more (which I hate the concept of....)

So its ok to build without full planning permission but get retention 3 days before a programme is aired, it is ok to possibly live in a house and just pretend is was vacant for a few years (ask the neighbours?) and its ok to build stairs without a handrail while everyone else compiles with building regs and has a handrail?

And ok to knock most of a perfectly liveable in house without an independent expert / engineer signing off to condemn it?

Yes, retention is perfectly legal, but to be building something without proper planning permission, and get retention three days before it is aired on national tv, is not great practice. Much better to apply for planning permission normally, as people are told to do. After all, sometimes retention is refused, and people have to tear down the structure. Although some would say that is unlikely to happen, especially if you have had coffee and biccies in a specially requested meeting with the Minister's adviser ?

And as regards the independent expert who would be required to sign off on a condemned roof / end wall ( if indeed the whole roof had to be condemned ( rather that just bits repaired ) ....why is his or her name conspicuous by its absence from the list of suppliers on the Room to Improve website? Everyone else is there, even the person who done the BER. Now maybe there was one, and all is in order, but as many others have suggested the roof was almost certainly surveyed when the bungalow was sold @ €303,000 the previous year, and nothing wrong found ( or the couple would have mentioned it). Dermot did not notice anything wrong, or any dampness or leaks in his inspection of the main roof of the house when he first visited, or he would have shown it. So why was the sudden condemnation and destruction of the roof / end wall etc glossed over so quickly in the middle of the programme? It seems Dermot was more concerned with the colour of roof tiles for a new roof? All a bit very strange, as lots of others have commented, and it needs clarification.

I know all about retention planning permission, thank you very much. Retention planning permission is when an application is made to retain an unauthorised development. The fee for retention planning permission is substantially in excess of the fee that would have been paid had planning permission been applied for in advance of the development being carried out.

Often when major changes are made to plans, the build is stopped for a period, while planning permission is sought. That happened on a previous episode of Room to Improve, I think. It is not recommended to make major changes to plans and then build away, as you could be forced to tear down your development. Although that is unlikely to happen, especially if you had coffee and biccies in a private meeting with the Ministers adviser?

And as regards the roof, you miss an important point. It is a requirement of the grant that part of the building to be demolished is to be condemned by an independent expert. You cannot demolish all of the building, that is not what the grant is for. Having the roof condemned by a qualified person employed full time by the roofing contractor would be a conflict of interest if indeed that did happen, as it seems you suggest.

For the sake of accuracy on this (because I think there is some validity to some of your other points) if you looked at the link in your post you’d see that there is no mention of handrails in it.