# Planning retention for a converted garage - costs?



## eamonn123456 (6 Feb 2008)

I am buying a semi-d house in Mayo.  A previous owner decided to convert the adjoining garage and proceeded to remove the 'up and over' garage door, extended the front porch halfway across the original garage, and put in a single exterior door to the side i.e. taking up the other half of the frontage of the original garage.

Mind you, that's as far as the project went.  Inside is not converted.

The current owner says they had to sign something when they bought it, stating that they know the change was made and accepting it as such.

He never bothered to apply for retention.

If I buy it, what is my best plan?

1.  wait til 7 years elapse (in another couple of years) and then apply for retention?

2.  same but apply for permission to finish the job as well i.e. convert inside?

3.  finish the job and apply for retention of the lot?

Other houses in the street have had various garage conversions done.


What are my chances of being refused permission by Mayo CoCo ?

Finally, what kind of costs are involved in the legal / planning side of this i.e. aside from conversion costs?

I have searched threads but found no answers to the above, would appreciate some advice.


----------



## MOB (6 Feb 2008)

Have you first checked whether or not the garage conversion is in fact an exempted development?   If you find the planning legislation a little hard to read, you might try the faq on one of the many local authority websites;  for example [broken link removed]


----------



## bacchus (6 Feb 2008)

Generally, you will _not_ need planning permission for:
Converting a garage attached to the rear or side of the house to domestic use so long as it has a floor area of less than 40 square metres.

See full text here


----------



## eamonn123456 (7 Feb 2008)

Bacchus and MOB - two VERY good points.  Thanks for taking the time to share those, I will suss those out.

Hopefully will be good news!


----------



## eamonn123456 (8 Feb 2008)

Turns out that I had to speak to planning in the Ballina Urban Council not Mayo coco.

Been advised there to get the engineer who is doing my survey to have a look and advise whether the situation is exempt or not.

The fact that the front elevation is changed is somewhat dodgy.

Also that there is a new side door - suspicion that it may constitute a granny flat - although it won't.

If not exempt, will have to apply for retention.

Up to me whether to delay sale or not.  Will be my prob only if I proceed with sale.  Depends whether I want to chance it or not to close the sale.

To be decided.  Thanks all for advice.


----------



## eamonn123456 (16 Feb 2008)

Update:  Engineer who did my survey advised that I *will* need to apply for planning permission for retention.  

Main reason is that the front elevation of the house has been altered as described above. 

Engineer says I wont see much change out of 2k for the surveys, drawings and  paperwork / fees to the council alone to retain the status quo. 

He said it costs more to do it retrospectively in order to discourage people from 'asking forgiveness' instead of getting permission....

That's before I spend the money to damp-proof the floor, slab out the walls and ceiling and all the rest of it.

Basically, this would be a liability to me if I buy the house, as I would be better off with the garage as it was, rather than a not even half-done, non-legal conversion.

Any thoughts?


----------



## bacchus (16 Feb 2008)

eamonn123456 said:


> Engineer says I wont see much change out of 2k for the surveys, drawings and  paperwork / fees to the council alone to retain the status quo.
> He said it costs more to do it retrospectively in order to discourage people from 'asking forgiveness' instead of getting permission....



A planning application fees are around €40/60 (depending on county) while the fees for retention are around €190.
OSI location maps are in around €70.
Rest is surveyor/architect fee. His/her fee would obviously be slightly higher for retention as surveyor has to spend time measuring up the building retention is applied for.

I think you should seriously considering letting the current owner sort this out, unless you negociate the price a good bit down (to pay for retention & risk).


----------



## Vanilla (17 Feb 2008)

We converted ours recently. Engineers cost 1400 for the planning application. All the rest of the work cost 3000 but we are doing it ourselves because I quite like that sort of project. That includes a wall of french windows to replace the garage door ( imported from France since the cheapest quote here was 5000 just for the french doors), flooring, panelling and wallpaper (to avoid having to skim walls) and one wall of shelving.


----------



## bacchus (17 Feb 2008)

Vanilla said:


> wallpaper (to avoid having to skim walls)



Just for info, you actually do not have to skim the walls by using beveled plasterboards. Simply tape the joint (preferably with mesh joint tape) and then spray plasterboard filler with a trowel over the joints.


----------



## eamonn123456 (18 Feb 2008)

Once again - really helpful info from Bacchus and Vanilla.

Sounds like 2k is realistic just to get the application prepared and submitted.

Definitely will ask the vendor to lower the price as this is nothing but a liability as it stands.  I think that is fair and reasonable.

Otherwise I will have to reconsider.


----------



## ramble (19 Feb 2008)

It would be fairly standard for a vendor to get retention in this sort of a situation, the property is then sold subject to retention being granted.  If the conversion doesn't have planning and you are getting a mortgage your solicitor will have to draw this to the attention of the lender who may not accept it or may accept it subject to you applying for retention immediately.  You should talk to your solicitor before going any further.


----------



## eamonn123456 (19 Feb 2008)

Thanks for the posting.  I hear what you say about the solicitor and the mortgage.

I don't get this bit tho:



> It would be fairly standard for a vendor to get retention in this sort of a situation, the property is then sold subject to retention being granted.



Do you mean it would be standard for the vendor to *apply* for retention and then it is sold subject to retention being granted?

If so, fair comment, but the vendor is not interested in applying.  He himself bought it in the same condition and status, and was aware of that status,  and never sorted it out either.

Obviously I can walk away but in fairness he already told me about the situation on day 1 so I am not complaining about that.

However, I think neither of us realised it would be 2 grand to apply for retention, so as I say, it seems fair and reasonable to ask the vendor to lower the price to reflect that liability, as this currently effectively diminishes the value of the house.


----------



## MelF (20 Feb 2008)

eamonn123456 said:


> However, I think neither of us realised it would be 2 grand to apply for retention, so as I say, it seems fair and reasonable to ask the vendor to lower the price to reflect that liability, as this currently effectively diminishes the value of the house.


 
This is interesting as I've just posted a query about what happens if retention isn't granted. Does the fact that the building is illegal effectively diminish the value of the house? Is that official? Am trying to sell a house and have applied for retention of existing illegal buildings (I bought it that way but wasn't aware they were illegal) and am very much hoping it will be granted - especially given your comment about diminishing value!


----------



## eamonn123456 (20 Feb 2008)

> Does the fact that the building is illegal effectively diminish the value of the house? Is that official?


I think the answer to the first question would be - 'Of course'.

The market dictates the price of a house.

Which would you rather have, a house that is compliant with planning or one that is not i.e. one where you could be ordered to restore it to the original state?

Imagine I was offered 2 houses, identical to the one I am buying, and one had full PP, the other without, as per the one I am buying.
The one without PP needs money (2k), time, effort to apply to get it into the compliant status i.e. simply to get permission to retain the status quo .  There is no guarantee that the application will succeed.  You could in fact incur more costs if they decide to force you to restore it back to how it was before the unsanctioned changes.

I know which house I would buy.  THe compliant house would have to be considered to be worth MORE than 2k more than the non-compliant one. 



> Is that official?


Well, official according to whom?  The market dictates the value.

Anyone else think otherwise?


----------



## MelF (20 Feb 2008)

My question wasn't really related to how one house compared to another as in my situation I'm waiting to get the retention sorted before putting it on the market. So I'm spending the 2k + myself trying to get it done.

The buildings not being legal didn't affect my buying price when I bought as they were never picked up on so I suppose what I'm wondering is if planning is refused does it _greatly_ affect my selling price or only by the cost of getting it legalised.


----------



## eamonn123456 (20 Feb 2008)

In my opinion it is very hard to quantify.

Imagine a buyer who is very keen on your house but does not want to take on a house without full PP.  So he does not make an offer. Hard to predict how that will affect the final price - maybe you would have had a bidding situation if that buyer and others were interested.  Even more so if it puts off a couple of buyers.  How can you predict the impact of putting off prospective buyers?  You can't quantify it but it obviously has an impact.

In my opinion it is likely to affect the value of the house by at least the cost of legalising it, plus some non-trivial unknown factor to allow for the hassle factor plus the risks I mentioned of it not being granted, or even forced to be changed back.

I would imagine if planning is *refused* then the situation is more serious.  

In any case, just because it was not picked up on by your solicitor, doesn't mean it will be missed by other buyers.


----------



## MelF (20 Feb 2008)

eamonn123456 said:


> In any case, just because it was not picked up on by your solicitor, doesn't mean it will be missed by other buyers.


 
I know . But with any luck I would hope that I can get it granted beforehand. Thanks and good luck with your own retention efforts!


----------



## eamonn123456 (20 Feb 2008)

Best of luck with that too.  I hope you get it all sorted out with minimum hassle.


----------



## eamonn123456 (20 Feb 2008)

Update:

asked vendor to reduce the price, he has said no.

He feels that, because he flagged up the issue from the start, that he should not drop the price now, even though neither of us knew at that point that there would be approx 2k of costs involved in applying  for retention.

That's ok, obviously its his prerogative, but I don't want to take the hit on this either.  There are enough other snags that will require money and time to organise.

In any case, the converted room is no advantage to me (even if was complete as opposed to just started), as I need storage space anyway for my tools, bikes, boards and other gear, so I would rather have a garage that is legal than a half-converted room that is not legal.

We have to make a final decision but I think we will just wait for another house to come up without these issues.  I don't think prices will increase for these houses anytime soon, so no rush.

Thanks for all the input which helped to clarify the decision.


----------



## miser (12 Mar 2008)

We had a similar situation- owner had made a number of changes to the house/garage & should have applied for permission. He refused to apply for retention after we (actually our surveyor) pointed this out, and so we withdrew our offer. I thought it was a bit short sighted of him, given the current market, but it's his house & his decision!


----------



## eamonn123456 (12 Mar 2008)

Yes, indeed it's the vendor's choice.  

Maybe they hope it won't be picked up in a survey or that the buyer will overlook it as they want the house so much.  

IMO its a liability, plain and simple and the cost of rectifying it, plus the risk that it will be refused, plus the hassle, needs to be reflected in the price.

As a final postscript to my thread, after we walked away from this sale, another house came up in the same street very quickly which is slightly bigger, much more modern, bigger garden etc. 

We are buying the other one now which has no issues, needs very little other work, and the extra money it costs is well worth the cost and hassle savings compared to the original house.

Ironically it doesn't have a garage, just a large shed.  However, the overall package works for us.

This planning issue was the factor that delayed the sale long enough that something else came up, so it effectively lost the sale for the vendor (turned out to be a blessing in disguise for us).

That in itself proves the point that it is a liability, and one that the vendor would prob be better off to resolve before trying to sell the house, especially in today's market.


----------

