Planning issues - post them here MOD WARNING post #1

ooompie5

I will be building a house on land I bought 5 years ago. It had lapsed pp on it at that time. When applying for pp now my designer has advised me to apply in the name of the previous owner who had obtained the earlier pp. His reasoning is that the planners would be less likely to refuse pp to somebody that they had previously granted it to. Apparently any correspondence will go to the designer so the previous owner would not need to know, though obviously I would want to ask him.
What do you think about this? Could it backfire on me if I do it? It sounds a bit too much of the cute hoor approach to me, but obviously I want to do whatever has the best chance of working out well.

Poor Uncle Tom

ooompie5 wrote: »

I will be building a house on land I bought 5 years ago. It had lapsed pp on it at that time.

OK, so you bought some land without planning permission, presumably with the hopes of getting planning permission down the road, did you get advice on this prior to purchase.

ooompie5 wrote: »

When applying for pp now my designer has advised me to apply in the name of the previous owner who had obtained the earlier pp. His reasoning is that the planners would be less likely to refuse pp to somebody that they had previously granted it to. Apparently any correspondence will go to the designer so the previous owner would not need to know, though obviously I would want to ask him.

Your designer sounds like a right chancer, what they are proposing amounts to identity theft and as such is fraudulent.

It sounds as though the lands are in an area zoned such that an applicant would need to prove a housing need. If this is the case, you either comply or you don't, a good local agent (not your designer) will advise you on this and whether you qualify or not.

ooompie5

Ok, I've spoken again to my agent. It was never intended that it be done without the previous owners knowledge. I misunderstood from the fact that the correspondence will be handled by the agent. i will also have to give my ok, as owner, on the form to his application.

The idea apparently is that if he applies for me, being the previous successful holder of the planning permission, it will be less likely to get a refusal than it would if the applicant was from a total newbie (me). Also he is well known in the area so an application in his name would be less likely to stimulate objections than one from a 'blow-in' (me).

It has nothing to do with local needs or anything like that.

Angry bird

So previous guy got planning, sold it to you, planning lapsed whenever. New application to go in his name with permission from you as land owner. What do ya reckon that will be picked up by the council and if they do, how do you think they'll look at planning for either one of you for the site. Seems you're taking a chance that may well blow up in your face. I don't buy the agents advise at all tbh. That's it's fraud to boot...

JimmyMW

ooompie5 wrote: »

Ok, I've spoken again to my agent. It was never intended that it be done without the previous owners knowledge. I misunderstood from the fact that the correspondence will be handled by the agent. i will also have to give my ok, as owner, on the form to his application.

The idea apparently is that if he applies for me, being the previous successful holder of the planning permission, it will be less likely to get a refusal than it would if the applicant was from a total newbie (me). Also he is well known in the area so an application in his name would be less likely to stimulate objections than one from a 'blow-in' (me).

It has nothing to do with local needs or anything like that.

Does local needs apply to the site? If it does which it will unless it is inside a development boundary, the planning will be tied to the applicant and is of no use to you. If you are inside a development boundary I would see no problem with you applying yourself as in general the council want people to build in these areas, the applicant will make no difference.

Also note that people need very valid reasons for objecting, some people think they can just object to some thing or someone that they dislike just because they share a boundary, this is not the case. So unless you are proposing to build something mental I would not get too concerned about potential objections.

ooompie5

Thanks for the response. It did seem iffy to me when it was suggested. I'll do things the official way.

Galway901

Hi Folks,

I am in the process of buying a site with an old derelict dwelling on it, doing a self build/direct labour for the reconstruction and extension of it, hoping to fund through a self build mortgage and have FPP with no restrictions...

Thus far;
-Booking deposit paid
-Mortgage application being processed now (costings and initial valuation done)

Q. Does anyone know or have experience in right of ways.. The right of way is registered for the site(and shown on the folio in yellow from the public road to the site entrance), the road is in good condition, is used by 3 other neighbours but is on someone elses land. Will the banks mortgage in this situation?

Also regarding a water connection to the site as there is none existing. How long roughly, can it take for an application for a water pipe easement to be granted from the council provided the land/road owner is consenting to this? (Routing the water pipe along or adjacent to the right of way)

Thanks for your help in advance.

The_Bullman

A quick question.

I have quoins shown on my planning. Do I have to keep them or can I do a different finish, e.g. a plastered vertical corner

Reati

ooompie5 wrote: »

Thanks for the response. It did seem iffy to me when it was suggested. I'll do things the official way.

It's best - I've seen someone try this before to get around something and get caught out lovely when the council went looking for letters to prove this that and the other. I can't remember the exact details as it was years ago but needless to say the land is sitting there as a tip now with no house on it.

lillycakes2

If you are likely to be refused planning on grounds of ribbon development- is there any ways to combat this?

Angry bird

lillycakes2 wrote: »

If you are likely to be refused planning on grounds of ribbon development- is there any ways to combat this?

Demonstrate that this is a suitable site for your needs, that your are local, that family live closeby, that sort of thing. Seek a pre-planning meeting with the Council for feedback.

ArtieBucco

Hi (sorry if wrong section)

I prepared a planning application recently, which was granted full permission for an extension. Today i was just looking over drawings, and i noticed a CAD Typo error, regarding the area of the extension, on the drawing it shows 31m2 when really it should have been 38m2..the dimensions are correct ( i messed up with the polyline calculating area).

The reason i ask is, the builder has set out his works to the correct dimension thats on the drawing, i'm just wondering for compliance reasons.

Poor Uncle Tom

ArtieBucco wrote: »

Hi (sorry if wrong section)

I prepared a planning application recently, which was granted full permission for an extension. Today i was just looking over drawings, and i noticed a CAD Typo error, regarding the area of the extension, on the drawing it shows 31m2 when really it should have been 38m2..the dimensions are correct ( i messed up with the polyline calculating area).

The reason i ask is, the builder has set out his works to the correct dimension thats on the drawing, i'm just wondering for compliance reasons.

If it's just for compliance purposes and your linear dimensions are correct then you have no problem, imo.

ArtieBucco

Thanks for the reply

If planning authority granted permission for the 31m2, when really its 38m2, would that be a problem?

Poor Uncle Tom

ArtieBucco wrote: »

Thanks for the reply

If planning authority granted permission for the 31m2, when really its 38m2, would that be a problem?

Not if you didn't mention the 31m2 in the ad and site notice, it can be seen as an error and not misleading.

Zzippy

Looking for advice - planning to put up a polytunnel in back garden for growing our own veg. Site is 0.7 acre, considering a polytunnel between 25-32 sq m.

Does anyone know if polytunnels are considered exempt as temporary structures, or considered same as sheds etc with 25 sq m exemption limit? Are planners really worried about polytunnels or would a slightly bigger one on a large site not raise any red flags? Tunnel would be behind an existing shed (built with planning same time as house).

BryanF

Zzippy wrote: »

Looking for advice - planning to put up a polytunnel in back garden for growing our own veg. Site is 0.7 acre, considering a polytunnel between 25-32 sq m.

Does anyone know if polytunnels are considered exempt as temporary structures, or considered same as sheds etc with 25 sq m exemption limit? Are planners really worried about polytunnels or would a slightly bigger one on a large site not raise any red flags? Tunnel would be behind an existing shed (built with planning same time as house).

Polytunnel would be exempt imo.

Poor Uncle Tom

Zzippy wrote: »

Looking for advice - planning to put up a polytunnel in back garden for growing our own veg. Site is 0.7 acre, considering a polytunnel between 25-32 sq m.

Does anyone know if polytunnels are considered exempt as temporary structures, or considered same as sheds etc with 25 sq m exemption limit? Are planners really worried about polytunnels or would a slightly bigger one on a large site not raise any red flags? Tunnel would be behind an existing shed (built with planning same time as house).

That would be a class 3 structure, imo giving you a limit of 25m2 among other restrictions for this and other similar type structures within the curtilage of any dwelling house.

Zzippy

Thanks folks. So I need to stick to 25 sq m to avoid planning issue but fine otherwise?

Angry bird

Sheds, polytunnels, other structures etc. in total have a planning exemption up to 25 sq. metres, so if you have one shed already then a polytunnel will more than likely bring the total over 25 sq. metres, and there are other T&C's re exempt rear sheds etc. Planners have bigger things to worry about than polytunnels needing planning, but if you get a visit and letter from the planning enforcement section, your options are a) apply to retain, b) remove it.

Zzippy

Angry bird wrote: »

Sheds, polytunnels, other structures etc. in total have a planning exemption up to 25 sq. metres, so if you have one shed already then a polytunnel will more than likely bring the total over 25 sq. metres, and there are other T&C's re exempt rear sheds etc. Planners have bigger things to worry about than polytunnels needing planning, but if you get a visit and letter from the planning enforcement section, your options are a) apply to retain, b) remove it.

Really? The existing shed (dbl height, block built, very much permanent) would be over 25 square m but was granted planning with the house, not built as an exempt development... surely that wouldn't prevent any further temporary structures?

Poor Uncle Tom

Zzippy wrote: »

Really?

Yes.

CLASS 3

The construction, erection or placing within the curtilage of a house of any tent, awning, shade or other object, greenhouse, garage, store, shed or other similar structure.

1. No such structure shall be constructed, erected or placed forward of the front wall of a house.

2. The total area of such structures constructed, erected or placed within the curtilage of a house shall not, taken together with any other such structures previously constructed, erected or placed within the said curtilage, exceed 25 square metres.

3. The construction, erection or placing within the curtilage of a house of any such structure shall not reduce the amount of private open space reserved exclusively for the use of the occupants of the house to the rear or to the side of the house to less than 25 square metres.

4. The external finishes of any garage or other structure constructed, erected or placed to the side of a house, and the roof covering where any such structure has a tiled or slated roof, shall conform with those of the house.

5. The height of any such structure shall not exceed, in the case of a building with a tiled or slated pitched roof, 4 metres or, in any other case, 3 metres.

6. The structure shall not be used for human habitation or for the keeping of pigs, poultry, pigeons, ponies or horses, or for any other purpose other than a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the house as such.

Zzippy

Kinda got a range of opinions there, from it's exempt, exempt under 25 sq m, to not being allowed at all because of existing shed! Would it be the case that individual planners would have differing interpretations too? Seems to be a very grey area...

BryanF

Zzippy wrote: »

Kinda got a range of opinions there, from it's exempt, exempt under 25 sq m, to not being allowed at all because of existing shed! Would it be the case that individual planners would have differing interpretations too? Seems to be a very grey area...

The lads are correct I shouldn't have said 'exempt'

sydthebeat

Zzippy wrote: »

Kinda got a range of opinions there, from it's exempt, exempt under 25 sq m, to not being allowed at all because of existing shed! Would it be the case that individual planners would have differing interpretations too? Seems to be a very grey area...

If you want "to be sure" you can apply for a section 5 declaration from the council. This costs €80 and takes 8 weeks.

But really, the advice above is correct.

You can only have a maximum of 25 sq m such structures on site to be considered exempt.

Once you go above that you require permission, regardless of the fact you got permission for the existing shed.

farawaygrass

We built a new house in 07, rented it out until 14 when children came along when we moved in ourselves. Before this we were living in my home house, a very old two storey house built on the farm yard. I would love to move back to the farmyard, but the old house would require a cost to renovate that wouldn't be justifiable, so I was thinking of building a modern dormer house. I should also add that the house we live in now is also on the farm, but with its own folio number and about half a mile away from the old house. Would I qualify for planning to demolish and build the new dormer house? If so, would it have to be on the same footprint of the old house or could I move it to a different area aprox 35-40 feet away?

Gumbo

Zzippy wrote: »

Kinda got a range of opinions there, from it's exempt, exempt under 25 sq m, to not being allowed at all because of existing shed! Would it be the case that individual planners would have differing interpretations too? Seems to be a very grey area...

You only got a range of answers because you didn't mention the existing shed at the start. It's not a grey area at all.

Total area of all,such structures needs to be under the 25 Sq. M.

Zzippy

kceire wrote: »

You only got a range of answers because you didn't mention the existing shed at the start. It's not a grey area at all.

Total area of all,such structures needs to be under the 25 Sq. M.

Um, I did actually mention the shed in my first post, but I appreciate the answers given here - has clarified the situation greatly for me. Thanks folks!

degetme

Hi folks
got final grant of permission for a bungalow month ago now. Could changes be made at back of house like make a window bigger or take out more blocks and replace with glass to leave in more sunlight? No major changes. Just to leave in more sunlight. Site in a rural area with no other house near by.

degetme

Hi folks
got final grant of permission for a bungalow month ago now. Could changes be made at back of house like make a window bigger or take out more blocks and replace with glass to leave in more sunlight? No major changes. Just to leave in more sunlight. Site in a rural area with no other house near by.