Protected structure!!

mj_mam

Mods: apologies if this is in the wrong place, please move if so.

Myself and oh planning on building on a site gifted to me by my father. There is a house on the site we would need to demolish.
Plans all drawn up, site notice put up, arch went to council to submit application to be told the house is a protected structure.

The house is totally unsound, I mean falling apart! Upstairs floors are sagging, walls are breaking apart, roof irreparable, windows completely rotten through.

So our arch told us we need to get local planner out to assess house, but she can't make final decision, that lies with the heritage council. I really can't see how they could say it must stay up, it will fall itself eventually.

I am fit to cry at this news!
Has anyone ever faced this obstacle and been successful in knocking the structure??

DOCARCH

Firstly, I am suprised you went all the way to knocking on the planning department door with an application to find out the house was a protected structure! Did your arch not check? I'd also suggest that if the site/house was transferred (legally) to you, the solicitor looking after the transfer should have found out the house was a protected structure?

I don't think anybody here can tell you, yes/no, the house can be knocked.

What I would say is you're going to have to put forward a very strong argument to knock it and just because it is in poor condition is not, in my opinion, good enough reason.

I assume you have not lodged your application? If it was lodged, then withdraw it.

Next step is get a planning consultant or architect (in your area) with experience of protected structures to look at the house and suggest a way forward.

mj_mam

No solicitor has been involved in legally transferring the name on the site to mine as of yet, that's what it wasn't found on that side of things.
And as for the arch (who I couldn't fault) is local and my father was sure there was no protection on the house. He is shocked at the news!
We have an app with the local planner tomorrow, hoping things will look up!

DOCARCH

mj_mam wrote: »

And as for the arch (who I couldn't fault)....

Except, maybe, for the fact s/he did not look up the record of protected structures at the start of the process!

The record of protected structures is public and is part of each county's development plan and is available on most county council's websites, so a quick search and this probably could have been easily found at the outset.

Let us know how your meeting the planner goes.

BTW, it is the county council who make the decision on whether or not you would be allowed to knock the house. As part of a planning application involving a protected structure, other bodies are notified of the application (like the Heritage Council, An Taisce, The Georgian Society) and they can make submissions to the council on the application.

mj_mam

DOCARCH wrote: »

mj_mam wrote: »

And as for the arch (who I couldn't fault)....

Except, maybe, for the fact s/he did not look up the record of protected structures at the start of the process!

Yes except this maybe!!
But we are also to blame. We were naive to think if we hadn't been informed of it, it mustn be protected!

sydthebeat

DOCARCH wrote: »

Except, maybe, for the fact s/he did not look up the record of protected structures at the start of the process!
.

to be fair here, if the dwelling shows no apparent architectural merit AND the client states that in there view the dwelling isnt protected, then some allowances can be given to the arch. Some councils Record of protected structures RPS is so convoluted as to make it very difficult to ascertain whether or not a building is protected. Even here in laois, where they have a pictorial index along with the list, it can be unclear sometimes the exact property they are referring to. I still cant understand why then dont simply attached OSI co ords. Theres so many different available methods to check then.

as a matter of course if im dealing with a property in excess of 100 years id check up the list.. but i have been caught out a few times

DOCARCH

Fair enough Syd - I am being a little pedantic! But as you do, when I am approached to look at any house, if it's more than maybe 60 or 70 years old, I will look up the record of protected structures first.

BTW, the OP did not say that the house 'shows no apparent architectural merit'. It obviously has some architectural merit (in the eyes of somebody anyway).

sydthebeat

DOCARCH wrote: »

BTW, the OP did not say that the house 'shows no apparent architectural merit'. It obviously has some architectural merit (in the eyes of somebody anyway).

well no they didnt, i was speaking more generally i suppose.
Without drawing this off topic, but the organic growth of RPS lists is very much based on personal opinion and fancy. I suppose this is of relevance to the OP too.

A building can be protected not just because of its architectural design but also because of the methods, materials or skills used to build it. I have seen some very non de-script buildings protected because of the vernacular methods used in its building.

mj_mam

Just a quick update...

Met with the local planner, to be told she couldn't comment on the demolition of the old house, only that there would need to be great justification to knock it.
She also said it doesn't look in bad enough repair to knock it.
She must go back and speak with the conservation officer, and that Lady will get in contact with us.
But it is not looking good, a bit lost now.

sinnerboy

mj_mam wrote: »

We were naive to think if we hadn't been informed of it, it mustn be protected!

not naive - correct

Notification of addition to the Record of Protected Structures
If the planning authority decides to consider a structure for inclusion in the RPS, it must go through the process laid down in the 2000 Act. It must notify the owner and occupier that the structure is a ‘proposed protected structure’. This means the structure has the same protection as a structure already on the RPS pending the final decision of the planning authority.

source

You apply to the local authority for a declaration under Section 57 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to state what types of work can be carried out without affecting the character of the structure. Total demolition certainly would of course

All is not lost however I'm sure your architect can redesign based on partial* demolition + extension.

(*I've seen many cases where partial = most of )

mj_mam

I know we shouldn't be feeling like it's the end of trying to build on that site, but it's hard not to. Just felt very defeated after the meeting.

Well my Father NEVER got any notice of intention to make it a protected structure. So we're waiting to see now was it made protected before 2000 and the process was different then.....
From what we can make out on the buildings of Ireland website, we think it was actually 2004, because pictures very recent looking. Father is fuming wondering who was in taking the pics, how they got the info, etc.etc

Funny to read the owner has an obligation to keep the building from going into ruin, this is exactly what has happened!

Be great if we could knock most of house and build our intended house!!

straight

Hi MJ;
I find myself in a similar position to yours only my house is not actually protected but the planner likes it's vernacular design. These "planners" do not seem to live in the real world imho! How did you get on eventually?

mj_mam

straight wrote: »

Hi MJ;
I find myself in a similar position to yours only my house is not actually protected but the planner likes it's vernacular design. These "planners" do not seem to live in the real world imho! How did you get on eventually?

Hi, we eventually had to leave the idea of knocking th existing dwelling. We built further down the site, a bit away from the old house. Doesn't look the best, but there was no budging on the protected structure. I had a few strong words at several meetings, but you might as well talk to the wall with some of these people. At least you are not dealing with a protected structure, best of luck!

BryanF

straight wrote: »

Hi MJ;
I find myself in a similar position to yours only my house is not actually protected but the planner likes it's vernacular design. These "planners" do not seem to live in the real world imho! How did you get on eventually?

Can you elaborate on what they considered 'vernacular' - there are some great examples of modern / contemporary but 'in keeping' with the landscape designs in many if the rural housing documents issued by local authorities

maryishere

mj_mam wrote: »

I had a few strong words at several meetings, but you might as well talk to the wall with some of these people.

that's right

straight

BryanF wrote: »

Can you elaborate on what they considered 'vernacular' - there are some great examples of modern / contemporary but 'in keeping' with the landscape designs in many if the rural housing documents issued by local authorities

Yes BryanF, they consider an eyesore/ruin of an old cottage to be vernacular. There is very good examples of house designs in the rural housing guidelines, etc. Problem is when you submit plans like them the planners just seem to want something different. Perhaps the trick is to submit something you don't want first and then change it to what you do actually want. I think these planners are just trying to keep themselves in a job! :mad:

hexosan

straight wrote: »

Yes BryanF, they consider an eyesore/ruin of an old cottage to be vernacular. There is very good examples of house designs in the rural housing guidelines, etc. Problem is when you submit plans like them the planners just seem to want something different. Perhaps the trick is to submit something you don't want first and then change it to what you do actually want. I think these planners are just trying to keep themselves in a job! :mad:

+1 to that.

sinnerboy

straight wrote: »

I think these planners are just trying to keep themselves in a job! :mad:

For many different reasons I do envy the limitless stream of paid "work" available to our state employees....