extension of planning and 'significant works'

dingdong1234567

Hey everybody.

Here's the situation.

Myself and the missus have found quiet a good site in cavan, now we only found this site last week. The big question mark over moving ahead on this the fact that the planning is due to expire on the 31/3/2010, therefor the issue of extension of time has arisen.

Now, i have spoken to Cavan coco about extension of planning etc and they have referred to Significant works being completed on site in order for an extension of time to be considered. There is no clear definition of what 'Significant works' actually is but Cavan coco have referred to the walls up to wall plate, although not commiting to it.

I have spoken with the architect of the proposed site and he maintains that if the foundations are in before the planning expires then it will most definaltey get an extension of planning. There could be conficts of interests i suspect on the architects part as he knows the land owner that is selling this. Or then again i could be reading to much into this?

Anywho my biggest fear here is that: We procure the site in the expectation we get and extension of planning but do not get it even though significant works has been done between now and the end of March (realistically is not achieveable anyway).

We would then be left in a position to re-apply for planning, given either of us are not from the area then i would suspect local needs would come into play along with increased development levies (€8000 to be exact) which all in all would = a piece of land that does not have planning.

Any advise/thoughts, thanks.

sydthebeat

my experiences of "extensions of duration of planning" have been this.

1. You must apply for, and be granted, the extension of time before the original planning permission expires

2. The build must be substantially complete, which in most common terms is accepted as being blockwork complete (or to wall plate level)

3. in the application you must show a reasonable attempt has been made on the parent permission, why the build will not be complete in time, and how long you perceive it would take to complete the build.

I personally would not conside foundations alone to be any attempt to make the dwelling substantially complete.

archtech

Normally the rate of levies payable are at the rate at the time of commencement of works rate and not at the time of grant of permission, so you could be still be stuck with the additional levy costs, if an extension was granted.

Wallplate level is normally taken as the level of work required to be at a significant stage in the construction. (for building regulations anyway) IMO Having foundations complete is a bit of an urban myth in terms of substantial works in the overall scheme of a normal building project.

Check the county development plan regarding housing needs, sometimes there are areas within counties where there's no requirement to satisfy a housing need, but it does vary from county to county.

dingdong1234567

sydthebeat wrote: »

I personally would not conside foundations alone to be any attempt to make the dwelling substantially complete.

Thats exactly what i would be thinking to, which leads me to suspect a conflict of interests from the architect.

The more i look at this one its all about time and lack of it in this case. If it was a case that the land owner was to get the planning extended then i would be more enthusiastic about the site, which is a great site tbh.

But from the feedback i am getting through the estate agent the land is reluctant to do this. In the long term for him is a bit short sighted as come the first of april he has a site for sale without planning therefore the price will half if not more if he wanted to sell it then.

Bugger, on to the next one!

dingdong1234567

archtech wrote: »

Normally the rate of levies payable are at the rate at the time of commencement of works rate and not at the time of grant of permission, so you could be still be stuck with the additional levy costs, if an extension was granted.

Agreed. But my point is that if planning was to be reapplied for i.e on the 1st April then the applicant would be subject to €8000 development levies (so cavan coco states anywho).

But as it stands levies are in the region of €2-3k as the current application was granted under different guidelines obviously.

archtech

dingdong1234567 wrote: »

But as it stands levies are in the region of €2-3k as the current application was granted under different guidelines obviously.

It very much depends on the wording of the condition regarding development levies, but in my experience the development contribution conditions normally include wording similar to "the rate of contributions shall be adjusted annually from the date of adoption of the Scheme using the Wholesale Price Index published by the CSO" and local authorities have insisted on payment of the adjusted contribution rates at the time of payment.

I can't image any Local Authority not including "the rate of contributions shall be adjusted annually" within their adopted Development Contribution Scheme which comes under Section 48 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as the contributions scheme is only adopted once every 5 years.

No6

At this stage to my mind it is a site without planning permission as the existing permission will expire in just over two months, as syd says substantally complete is walls to roof level. If the levies have changed has the development plan if so the question you should be asking is will you get planniing on this site as opposed to the original applicant.

Mellor

dingdong1234567 wrote: »

But from the feedback i am getting through the estate agent the land is reluctant to do this. In the long term for him is a bit short sighted as come the first of april he has a site for sale without planning therefore the price will half if not more if he wanted to sell it then.

This could work in your favour.

dingdong1234567

archtech wrote: »

It very much depends on the wording of the condition regarding development levies, but in my experience the development contribution conditions normally include wording similar to "the rate of contributions shall be adjusted annually from the date of adoption of the Scheme using the Wholesale Price Index published by the CSO" and local authorities have insisted on payment of the adjusted contribution rates at the time of payment.

I can't image any Local Authority not including "the rate of contributions shall be adjusted annually" within their adopted Development Contribution Scheme which comes under Section 48 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as the contributions scheme is only adopted once every 5 years.

Yes the above is included in the conditions of planning alright.

dingdong1234567

No6 wrote: »

At this stage to my mind it is a site without planning permission as the existing permission will expire in just over two months, as syd says substantally complete is walls to roof level. If the levies have changed has the development plan if so the question you should be asking is will you get planniing on this site as opposed to the original applicant.

I would estimate we would not get plannning as i feel the local needs issue would kick in. I would agree with your thinking, its a plot of ground without planning. Simple as.

Mellor wrote: »

This could work in your favour.

Agreed, which is why i'm going to ring the estate agent and lay my cards on the table. To be updated....

RKQ

archtech wrote: »

Wallplate level is normally taken as the level of work required to be at a significant stage in the construction. (for building regulations anyway) IMO Having foundations complete is a bit of an urban myth in terms of substantial works in the overall scheme of a normal building project.

+1 Very well put.:)
I agree with No.6 point and would add that Cavan may have adopted EPA Guidelines for sewerage treatment, as opposed to SR6:1991, over the last 5 years.
Some sites that passed SR6 would not pass EPA guidelines. It might be worth discussing this point with your new Agent or Enviroment Dept of Cavan County Council.

I would advise that you retain an independent Arch Tech or Architect, you might be reading too much into the relationship between the Architect and Landowner, but why risk a possible "conflict of interest".

dingdong1234567

RKQ wrote: »

I would advise that you retain an independent Arch Tech or Architect, you might be reading too much into the relationship between the Architect and Landowner, but why risk a possible "conflict of interest".

Agreed, that would be my intension if we are to purchase the site..

dingdong1234567

dingdong1234567 wrote: »

Agreed, which is why i'm going to ring the estate agent and lay my cards on the table. To be updated....

Anywho, so i rang the estate agent yesterday and laid it out. Basically we are very interested in the site and would be keen to progress, but that the main absticle would be the fact that planning is up at the end of MArch and there is no extension of planning in place etc. And it is for this reason we are backing away from this one as the risk is to great for us being left with a site without planning and quite likely we would not get planning if we where to reapply ourselves (see above, local needs etc).

I was met with silence for about 10 seconds......''so would you like to look at other sites then?'' I was met with. Now, on hearing this is was thinking to myself surley the agent has sensed that we are very keen on this one and perhaps i could pull my finger out and make something happen here. But alias it would appear not.......well not until this morning at least.

The agent rang me back this morning stating that they would look into setting up a meeting with the landowner, architect and the cavan coco planner. This is positive as it clearly says a few things to me;

Landowner - wants to sell.
Architect - Wants the buisness.
Estate Agent - Wants thier % cut.
Cavan coco - Wants income for the Council coffers, devel levies (perhaps) but i suspect will be there in an advisory capacity from the council.

When the meeting takes place (still waiting for agent to come back to me), i will not entertaining a 'sales pitch' to be told yes you will get a planning extension if the foundations and footings are in etc. Unless i get a cast iron guarantee in writing either from a senior planner or a managers order stating planning on the site has been extened for 'x' period then the meeting will be pointless in the greater scheme of things.....on we go...

Poor Uncle Tom

dingdong1234567 wrote: »

When the meeting takes place (still waiting for agent to come back to me), i will not entertaining a 'sales pitch' to be told yes you will get a planning extension if the foundations and footings are in etc. Unless i get a cast iron guarantee in writing either from a senior planner or a managers order stating planning on the site has been extened for 'x' period then the meeting will be pointless in the greater scheme of things.....on we go...

Cast-iron guarantee in writing = Planning Permission. Planning can not be extended without a significant amount of work having been carried out on the site, building to wall plate level, imo.

Therefore, surely you know this isn't happening at or before any meeting taking place.