Kitchen extension planning retention

domcq · 07-02-2012 04:50PM #1

I've recently bid on a property (Dublin 12) that has a kitchen extension (with the square footage allowance) that extends outwards to the side of the house (semi D), so much so that it changes the facade of the house. It also partially extends down the gable wall a few feet. Most of the extension is at the back of the house (apart from the section that extends down the gable wall). It's a bit bit like a stumpy L piece slotted to the back of the house with the short part of the L creeping down the gable wall.

My surveyor highlighted that because the extension extends so far to the side that it changes the facade of the house, it would have needed planning when first built. It was built over 10 years ago so now it needs planning retention.

The seller has suggested that when I'm the owner, that I apply for the retention and that they will knock €500 off for the cost of the application. They say the planning retention is a formality and that it will no doubt be granted.

If it's such a formality, why won't they put the application through I've asked? (they say beacuse it's a long process and they need the sale to go through quickly).

I realize that after 7 years, it can't be knocked, but if I'm not granted the retention then I'm left with an extension with an underlying planning issue - The day you buy is the day you sell and all that.

In people's experience, is successful planning retention always a certainty?

DOCARCH · 07-02-2012 05:09PM

Hi domcq

This is not your problem to sort out. Their problem and they should sort out. They should be applying for retention (or if they feel the extension is exempt, they should be providing opinions on compliance to that effect).

If you are borrowing money to make the purchase, I'm pretty sure your lending institution will not advance the money until this issue is sorted. This will apply to any other potential purchaser. If you have a solicitor involved you should also get their advice.

You are correct in saying that if the extension is there over 7 years it cannot be knocked, but that does not legitimise the extension.

If the current owner wants the sale to go through quickly, they should be sticking in an application for retention a.s.a.p.!

sydthebeat · 07-02-2012 05:48PM

in the current economy the buyer is king.

this is THEIR problem to sort out, not yours... .and its a cheeky suggestion to take €500 off.
Let them sort it out and see what it costs them. There could be any amount of unseen problems.

To be honest your own solicitor should be sounding alarm bells at you. With the way financial institutions are going trough mortgages with microscopes, if they found out that you bought a property where all planing wasnt secure, they could pull your mortgage straight away.

Poor Uncle Tom · 07-02-2012 07:13PM

As said above, it isn't your problem to sort out and to be honest the offer of €500 to sort out the sellers mess is an insult.

What they are not telling you is that an application for retention will attract a condition regarding contributions to the LA which, depending on the floor area of the extension, could run to a couple of thousand euro. Your solicitor will then want a Certificate of Compliance with the new planning permission. When all this is added to the cost of a planning application you may not have any change out of €3,000.

Advice, be just as cheeky as the sellers and tell them you will sort out their mess for €10,000.

domcq · 07-02-2012 07:31PM

Thanks folks - I've been thinking along those lines also.

The sellers did produce an opinion on compliance from an architect that stated the extension was exempted development but my surveyor pointed out that the extension wasn't exempted due to the reasons above.

My solicitor's advice was to accept the opinion on compliance despite my surveyor saying that it was inaccurate (the sellers also failed to provide the PI details of the architect who supplied the opinion on compliance).

I wouldn't accept the opinion on compliance and asked for a Section 5 declaration to determine the extension's status. After some time, and direct contact with the seller, they contacted the architect who originally designed the extension and he conceded after consulting a planning colleague that it did need planning.

The term "overly fussy" has been used by the sellers solicitor and estate agent to describe my surveyor but I think that "thorough" is a more accurate term.

DOCARCH · 07-02-2012 08:16PM

domcq wrote: »

.... but I think that "thorough" is a more accurate term.

+1

I am little shocked (although not entirely surprised) by the attitude of both your solicitor and the sellers solicitor!

Two words for them....impaired title.

Mellor · 07-02-2012 11:20PM

domcq wrote: »

The sellers did produce an opinion on compliance from an architect that stated the extension was exempted development ...

this is the part I found ridiculous.
If there was no planning, then there is nothign to comply with - so the opinion is meaningless.

A professional can offer an opinion on weather or not plannign is required, but this is just a professional opinion and not a legal document.

I'd request that they kncok 10k off or do it themselve. Keep banging on about contributions to council.

muffler · 07-02-2012 11:53PM

Mellor wrote: »

this is the part I found ridiculous.
If there was no planning, then there is nothign to comply with - so the opinion is meaningless.

A professional can offer an opinion on weather or not plannign is required, but this is just a professional opinion and not a legal document.

Not quite Mellor. I think what the OP was referring to was a cert stating that the works were classed as exempted development.

I have done quite a few certs of opinion which are basically what I would call the "private sectors" replacement/mirror copy of a section 5 declaration and its then up to the legal eagles as to whether they want to accept it or not. Some do and some dont and the example above is one of the reasons why some solicitors wont accept the "private" opinion.

muffler · 08-02-2012 12:09AM

domcq wrote: »

The sellers did produce an opinion on compliance from an architect that stated the extension was exempted development but my surveyor pointed out that the extension wasn't exempted due to the reasons above.

My solicitor's advice was to accept the opinion on compliance despite my surveyor saying that it was inaccurate (the sellers also failed to provide the PI details of the architect who supplied the opinion on compliance).

As stated previously that was terrible advice to get from a solicitor. Maybe you should consider changing.

domcq wrote: »

I wouldn't accept the opinion on compliance and asked for a Section 5 declaration to determine the extension's status. After some time, and direct contact with the seller, they contacted the architect who originally designed the extension and he conceded after consulting a planning colleague that it did need planning.

He shouldn't have had to consult with anyone and I doubt if he did. But lets assume he did consult then its a poor reflection as he should have known the ins and outs of what he was certifying or to give it the proper title - a certificate of opinion. But at least he was man enough to hold his hand up although it should never have come to that.

domcq wrote: »

The term "overly fussy" has been used by the sellers solicitor and estate agent to describe my surveyor but I think that "thorough" is a more accurate term.

"Overly fussy" can be used by the "opposition" to disguise or attempt to cover up their poor performance or their snail-like speed when dealing with these matters. your surveyor should take that as a compliment actually. It's just a pity that you couldn't have used the same phrase about your solicitor.

As an aside I have a client who has sale agreed on his house and the purchasers surveyor picked up that a detached garage (25.9 m2) had no pp. I have an application made now for retention of the garage but the purchasers are proceeding with the sale and will move in at the beginning of March. €5000 is being retained by the purchasers until such time as the retention permission is granted and if (and I cant see it happening though) it gets refused then they keep they knock the garage and keep the 5 grand.

Mellor · 08-02-2012 12:46AM

muffler wrote: »

Not quite Mellor. I think what the OP was referring to was a cert stating that the works were classed as exempted development.

I have done quite a few certs of opinion which are basically what I would call the "private sectors" replacement/mirror copy of a section 5 declaration and its then up to the legal eagles as to whether they want to accept it or not. Some do and some dont and the example above is one of the reasons why some solicitors wont accept the "private" opinion.

i am aware what he was talkign about, badly worded.
But I was point out that its just an opinion, not a legal document and means nothing if the council call.
A section 5 is the only one with any bearing

domcq · 08-02-2012 09:14AM

muffler wrote: »

As stated previously that was terrible advice to get from a solicitor. Maybe you should consider changing.

He shouldn't have had to consult with anyone and I doubt if he did. But lets assume he did consult then its a poor reflection as he should have known the ins and outs of what he was certifying or to give it the proper title - a certificate of opinion. But at least he was man enough to hold his hand up although it should never have come to that.

.

My solicitor has been no help whatsoever and her attitude all along has been to go with the cert provided - I get the feeling she want's whatever's easiest for her. She's mentioned that if I need her services for another house, she'll give me a discount!

Just to clarify one point: It wasn't the architect who originally designed the extension who supplied the opionion on compliance, It was another architect who hadn't previously been involved with the property. It was only after I refused to accept the opinion on compliance supplied by them that the seller sought out the original architect to get his thoughts on it. He then conceded that it needed planning when first built.

I don't really want to go down the road of a discount (the estate agent did mention this) for me to sort the retention out as I'm not comfortable with the potential unforseen issues that might arise.

The offer was accepted back in Spet 2011 and it's taken until now to get to a point where they conceded that the extension needed planning. House prices are dropping and I've recently seen other properties that offer equal value, though I do like this house.

As of yesterday evening, the sellers have put the house back on the market and the estate agent informs me that she had a word with the seller's solicitor - apparently they don't intend to apply for retention as they don't expect the next buyer's surveyor to be as "fussy" (there's that word again!).

My thoughts are, by all means put it back on the market on the off chance that someone will buy it based on the opinion on compliance, but apply for retention also as a backup if nobody does. I've said all along that i'll proceed with the sale, but only if everything is in order.

The estate agent is calling me back today to try and "work something out" but I'm holding fast that they need to sort out the planning retention.

sydthebeat · 08-02-2012 09:59AM

domcq wrote: »

... the next buyer's ....

well they're very optimistic in the current climate aren't they :P

BryanF · 08-02-2012 01:00PM

domcq wrote: »

The estate agent is calling me back today to try and "work something out" but I'm holding fast that they need to sort out the planning retention.

fussy or not, your surveyor is working for you, and the no amount of squirming by the sellers rep negates the facts. best of luck with it. (I think mufflers 'x€ retention' is a good option to explore)

mickdw · 10-02-2012 03:14PM

muffler wrote: »

As an aside I have a client who has sale agreed on his house and the purchasers surveyor picked up that a detached garage (25.9 m2) had no pp. I have an application made now for retention of the garage but the purchasers are proceeding with the sale and will move in at the beginning of March. €5000 is being retained by the purchasers until such time as the retention permission is granted and if (and I cant see it happening though) it gets refused then they keep they knock the garage and keep the 5 grand.

If the 0.9m extra floor area happened to be the only issue with the detached garage with regard to planning exemption, What is your opinion on - for example an insulated board being permanently fixed to the internal. reducing the floor area to under 25 sqm.

DOCARCH · 10-02-2012 04:00PM

mickdw wrote: »

If the 0.9m extra floor area happened to be the only issue with the detached garage with regard to planning exemption, What is your opinion on - for example an insulated board being permanently fixed to the internal. reducing the floor area to under 25 sqm.

I have heard of a planning enforcement officer telling somebody to do this to reduce the area of an extension to within the limits of exempt development.

Poor Uncle Tom · 10-02-2012 05:18PM

If it becomes part of the make up of the external wall, then there should'nt be a problem with reducing the floor area by the amount of the slab.

muffler · 12-02-2012 10:42PM

mickdw wrote: »

If the 0.9m extra floor area happened to be the only issue with the detached garage with regard to planning exemption, What is your opinion on - for example an insulated board being permanently fixed to the internal. reducing the floor area to under 25 sq. m.

Without getting out the calculator I think that insulated board would have to be 130+mm on each wall to reduce it to 25m2 or less in this situation.

But to answer your question Id have no problem with certifying anything where the finished wall to wall dimensions internally leave the garage under 25m2.

mickdw · 12-02-2012 11:21PM

20 linear metres of wall minimum for that area of shed so 50mm slab would do it.
Re the discussion earlier about private sector exemption certs, they have a very valid use for cases of where there can be no debate about a development such as a basic garden shed which clearly meets the exemption conditions. These will need certification of some form to enable a sale of the property but it would be overkill to look for declarations for all these type works. After all, the word of the private architect is being taken with regard to the whole property by way of compliance cert. I dont see why there should be skepticism is relation to an opinion on a Planning exemption. That is why Insurance must be in force I would have thought.

Kitchen extension planning retention

Comments