planners rights

observer2u

I have a quick question.

What are the legal rights of the planning authority in terms of defining who owns property.

I am speaking to them regarding building a second home on a piece of land I have. They will only grant planning if the 2 houses on the site always remain under the same ownership. Are they entitled to condition this as part of planning?

rayjdav

I find it hard to understand how they can determine an approval with that as an attached condition. Indefinite ownership??? You sure on that?

Usually they can, and will, for one off housing in specific areas, attach an occupancy condition whereby the applicant must reside at the dwelling for a set period of time, anything from usually three (3) to ten (10) years. They usually subnote that the only "way out" of this condition is that, if the property is under mortgage, the institution, may as per their contract, take occupancy of the property for reasons of non payment or otherwise.

If it is as you say above, I would definitly approach them and get them to clarify exactly what they mean. I'm confused as per the description and also without knowing fully the extent of the circumstance.

If this is a condition of an approved grant recently, if they wont recind it, appeal it to ABP asap.

Once again, this opinion is given without the full knowledge and extent of the case file being known.

antoinolachtnai

I have seen this done. The second house is considered ancillary. It depends on the circumstances. There is nothing wrong with a requirement like this, although I wonder if they have described it well.

Here is the condition I saw before:

2. The extended house shall be used as a single residential unit. The single storey studio apartment (area: 43sqm), and a single storey garden shed (area: 35sqm) shall be restricted to the occupier of the main house, shall not be separated from the main house by way of sale or letting or otherwise used for any commercial, retail or industrial use whatsoever save with a separate grant of planning permission. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to prevent undesireable sub-division of the curtilage of the Protected Structure.

sydthebeat

i have seen a condition where the planning authority tried to restrict the ownership of an existing house to the parents of the applicants, applying for a new one.

the applicants subsequently got a letter from the planning authority stating that they would not be enforcing that condition.

observer2u

cheers guys

sydthebeat - that is a position very similar to ours - i wonder how they managed to get such a letter???

sydthebeat

observer2u wrote: »

cheers guys

sydthebeat - that is a position very similar to ours - i wonder how they managed to get such a letter???

to be honest, political influence...