Planning retention for garage conversion & rear extension built 1991

[theglock]

Have sale agreed with a vendor for a semi-d, however no planning permission obtained or sought for extensions & alterations to the property which has been verified by our solicitor.

The alterations were a garage conversion to habitable room that was attached to the side of the property with a loft overhead to which a stairs was added to gain access. There is a velux window in this to the rear of the property. The roof apart from that has not been altered.

On top of this there was an extension to the rear of the property.

Initially the vendor's engineer provided a sort of non-binding certificate to state that the works were exempt citing two different acts.
The work was carried out in 1991 so our solicitor went back and queried his citation of the 2000 Act thus saying that at the time the work was carried out it did not apply and therefore it's an unauthorised building. I think its to do with overall square footage that has since been extended and would be Ok now.

Apologies as this is my first post and I can't find a problem identical to mine. The vendor is refusing to seek planning retention and we are reluctant to buy without some sort of assurance that we will get it sorted later. Really like the house though.

My question is would it still be possible to apply for exemption given that we can find an architect to sign off on this and failing that what are the probabilities of getting retention ourselves as houses in the area have had similiar work done at the time.

 

[lowCO2design]

yes a section 5 (exemption) will probably be through (5 weeks max council time-frame) in reality by the time you actually sign. thats presuming of course that it is exempt, but your a bit naive to presume that an architect will just sign-off on this..

what seems to be popular at the moment is to suggest a bond/ retention of moneys (worth the equivalent value of the unauthorised elements) until the issue is resolved.


perhaps to put your mind at rest you might go straight to the planners for their opinion (but IMHO get an architect or planning consultant to write or go with you to any meeting

 

[theglock]

Thanks very much for you reply lowCO2design but to clarify a bit further what my conundrum is I will quote from the vendor's engineers report:

1) ".. the conversion of loft to study took place in 1991. I certify that this development is an exemp development under Class 3 of Part 1 of the Third Schedule of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations of 1977, SI 65/77.
2) ".. the conversion of garage to habitable room and construction of rear extension took place in 1991. I certify that the total area of these two developments amounts to 22.82 sq. m. which area exceeds the limits set out in the the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations of 1977 SI 65/77 but is less than the limits set out in the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations of 1994 SI 600/2001.
3) .. no Building Bye-law approval was sought for the above developments. The owner advises me that no notices were served on her by the planning authority in connection with same. The works were completed prior to the coming into force of the 1991 Building Regulations on the 1st June 1992.

Is it that, in your opinion, exemption in this case would be denied due to the size limits in place in 1991 or can exempion be granted based on the compliance to size limits since? Is it a case of interpretation?

It is also unclear to me that should this be impossible and that I seek retention instead and it is refused (based possibly on e.g. current Building Regulations), can the LA seek enforcement action to restore the property to its original condition or would the property remain an unauthorised building? Quote from Cork City Council website "If retention of an unauthorised development is refused, the unauthorised development must be removed and/ or the unauthorised use ceased"
Does the 7 year enforcement issue become null and void if retention planning is refused?

The idea of a bond in this instance wouldn't suit if the exemption/retention wasn't granted as the rear extension comprises a kitchen which would be hard to place a value on and would also render the property unattractive to purcahse if forced to remove.

Thanks again for any help in what seems to me to be a very grey area (and probably why the vendor is reluctant to sort this out).

 

[lowCO2design]

Thanks very much for you reply lowCO2design but to clarify a bit further what my conundrum is I will quote from the vendor's engineers report:

1) ".. the conversion of loft to study took place in 1991. I certify that this development is an exemp development under Class 3 of Part 1 of the Third Schedule of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations of 1977, SI 65/77.
2) ".. the conversion of garage to habitable room and construction of rear extension took place in 1991. I certify that the total area of these two developments amounts to 22.82 sq. m. which area exceeds the limits set out in the the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations of 1977 SI 65/77 but is less than the limits set out in the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations of 1994 SI 600/2001.
3) .. no Building Bye-law approval was sought for the above developments. The owner advises me that no notices were served on her by the planning authority in connection with same. The works were completed prior to the coming into force of the 1991 Building Regulations on the 1st June 1992.

Is it that, in your opinion, exemption in this case would be denied due to the size limits in place in 1991

I doubt you'll any any problems, BUT as i said above go ask the local area planner! they are queit approachable, and at the end of the day, your building doesn't have the correct permits and thats not your fault its the seller, so its their problem not yours

or can exempion be granted based on the compliance to size limits since?

probably, but this is irrelevant imo.

Is it a case of interpretation?

yes - as i said above submit the relevant drawings and photos outlining the issue and require an exemption - you may find if you spoke to the planner first this could be sorted prior to the five weeks deadline.

It is also unclear to me that should this be impossible and that I seek retention instead and it is refused (based possibly on e.g. current Building Regulations),

n/a

can the LA seek enforcement action to restore the property to its original condition or would the property remain an unauthorised building?

no its built to long

Quote from Cork City Council website "If retention of an unauthorised development is refused, the unauthorised development must be removed and/ or the unauthorised use ceased"
Does the 7 year enforcement issue become null and void if retention planning is refused?

no the 7 year rule still stands

imo go back to the seller - tell them your keen to move forward, but your engs due-diligence forces you to either

1. delay the sale
2. or retain say 30g, until this issue sorted.

The idea of a bond in this instance wouldn't suit if the exemption/retention wasn't granted as the rear extension comprises a kitchen which would be hard to place a value on and would also render the property unattractive to purcahse if forced to remove.

as i said above its very unlikely anything this dramatic will ever come to pass.

Thanks again for any help in what seems to me to be a very grey area (and probably why the vendor is reluctant to sort this out).

its not a grey area, you just haven't paid anyone for professional advice