# Illegal flat conversion



## redspot (2 Aug 2007)

I am looking at puchasing a two storey house that was converted into two flats about thirty years ago. Planning permission was never obtained and as its not a pre '63 I'm wondering where I stand. Both flats are currently rented out and I would be intending to do some renovations and then rent them out again. What are the posible downfalls to my plan? Any opinions would be valued.


----------



## ClubMan (3 Aug 2007)

Sounds dodgy. Have you asked a surveyor and solicitor for an opinion?


----------



## z109 (3 Aug 2007)

You could buy subject to retention planning permission and then apply to the local council for permission to retain the conversion, but the seller may not be amenable to this (if it was refused, presumably he would have to reverse the conversion?).


----------



## Vanilla (3 Aug 2007)

Because it was done 30 years ago while it is still an unauthorised structure the planning authorities can do nothing about it now. The difficulties I see are:
1. If you need a loan to buy, will your lender be happy to accept this qualification on title.
2. If you sell in time will your future buyer accept this qualification on title.
3. It is unlikely that it would comply with current building regulations and this is something I would be wary of in relation to rental and resale- so if you plan to renovate have a word with an engineer on that point.

The planning issue can be cured by an application for retention but again will the planning authority allow it? Will there be conditions to enforce compliance with current building regs/fire regs etc and if so does this make it an uneconomical prospect.

Have a word with a local engineer about it.


----------



## redspot (3 Aug 2007)

Thanks for the replies, will have both an engineer and solicitor have a look at it next week.
 Have asked the council about it and as long as I'm not doing any more structural work they seem to be powerless/ don't really care about it. Have also tried to ask Insurance co. but hard to get information from them. I've renovated a few houses myself before but never a multiple unit so its a bit of a minefield as to what is required. 
What exactly does "qualification of title" mean Vanilla?


----------



## Vanilla (3 Aug 2007)

These type of unauthorised properties or conversions are a bit of an anomaly-while it is unauthorised there is nothing the council can do about it. When you want a loan one of the first documents your solicitor has to send to the bank is a certificate saying the property has good marketable title. In this case however that certificate would have to be qualified by the fact that the conversion is unauthorised. The bank will then make a commercial decision on whether to proceed or not. So it is a qualification on the title- in otherwords not clean marketable title, but flawed.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (4 Aug 2007)

The fact that the title is flawed should also make it cheaper to buy now. 

Brendan


----------



## Purple (4 Aug 2007)

Brendan said:


> The fact that the title is flawed should also make it cheaper to buy now.



If the property was converted back to its listed use would it then become more valuable?


----------



## Superman (4 Aug 2007)

Is there proof that the conversion happened after '63?


----------



## slamdunkin (6 Aug 2007)

As there is a risk you may not be able to retain the flat then that means a cheaper price. Any risk = lower price.You should be able to get a retention if it was down over ten years ago.


----------



## redspot (7 Aug 2007)

In order of replies:
Spoke to my normally very fussy solicitor who felt that as long as I could get a "declaration of uninterrupted long term use" then legally she'd be happy with it. The bank has said yes as its looking at it as a commercial loan due to the fact we have 2 other rental properties with them.

The property is being sold at what I would consider a discount.

A good quality conversion back to a single unit would probably cover its costs, hard to say exactly under current market conditions, but the location is good. As a rental property its definitely more worthwhile as two units

Only what I'm told. Who is it that declares a property to be "pre 63" is it a piece of paper? Is it legally binding? Does anyone check?

If applying for retention should I submit plans as is, or do I have to plan to bring it all up to current reg.'s

Thanks again for replies


----------



## RainyDay (7 Aug 2007)

redspot said:


> If applying for retention should I submit plans as is, or do I have to plan to bring it all up to current reg.'s


Would you be comfortable in renting out a property which doesn't meet best practice for fire exits, venting and other stuff covered in the regs?


----------



## redspot (7 Aug 2007)

Was waiting for that one, I would certainly intend to address fire proofing/escape/alarms, venting , lighting etc. but some reg.'s eg open space and wheelchair access, I won't be. I suppose my query is, when the council is looking at a retention planning permission proposal do I show them what I will be doing, or do I submit whats already there and let them tell me what to do? Also what happens if they say no?


----------



## RainyDay (8 Aug 2007)

redspot said:


> but some reg.'s eg open space and wheelchair access, I won't be.


Wouldn't want any of those nasty oul crips getting in eh?


----------



## Purple (8 Aug 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Wouldn't want any of those nasty oul crips getting in eh?


 That's not fair, he just doesn't want them using the loo


----------



## redspot (10 Aug 2007)

Its definitely not fair, in fact its insulting, the ground floor flat will be wheelchair accessible, but the one thats up fifteen odd granite steps won't be. In the same way that it won't have access to the garden.

Spoke to engineer, he feels that there is no issue with regards to planning and no point in applying for retention as long as the bank and insurance people are happy. He did point out that there "may" be a moral duty (in a legal way) to install fire alarms, extinguishers and escapes, but as pointed out above that would be part of the plan anyway. 

He did also mention soundproofing which on a timber floor is not very financially viable to get totally right, but the double slabbing of the ceiling plasterboard of the ground floor flat would help both this and the fireproofing.


----------



## Vanilla (10 Aug 2007)

redspot said:


> He did point out that there "may" be a moral duty (in a legal way) to install fire alarms, extinguishers and escapes, but as pointed out above that would be part of the plan anyway.


 
I wonder what a moral duty in a legal way is?


----------



## RainyDay (10 Aug 2007)

redspot said:


> Its definitely not fair, in fact its insulting, the ground floor flat will be wheelchair accessible, but the one thats up fifteen odd granite steps won't be. In the same way that it won't have access to the garden.


No insult intended - just a response to your comment that you weren't planning on complying with some of the regs. In fact, having an stepped entrance is permissible within the Part M regs in certain circumstances. From section 1.22



> 1.22 Where it is not practicable to provide the
> required level or sloped approach to the dwelling
> entrance from either the point of entry to the
> dwelling plot [...] a stepped approach may be used. This may arise
> ...



so you may well be in compliance with that aspect of the regs. However, there is a lot more to accessibility for people with disabilities than level entry for wheelchair users, e.g. door widths, heights of switches, types of handles, handrails on steps and much, much more. A good architect or engineer will advice further.

For the record, I work in the disability sector, so I have a special interest in these matters.


----------

