Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Buying house - planning violation

  • 26-06-2013 2:04pm
    #1
    padraig.od
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 780 ✭✭✭


    Hi,

    I'm interested in buying a house that was built within the last 10 years. Investigating with the local council and going by the description on the planning application it looks like the current owner received planning permission for a dormer bungalow, but went ahead and built a two story house anyway! Unfortunately the planning files are not available online so I will need to visit the local council to see plans/conditions/site maps etc. to confirm.

    If I were to buy this property could the council prosecute me (as the new owner) for work to return the house to the one originally planned, or is there some sort of statute of limitations after which the council can't pursue the owner? If I wanted to sell down the line would I need to apply for retention to comply with the original plans approved by the council? Would I be liable for, say, local development fees if the square footage exceeds that planned?

    Should I just talk to a solicitor?!

    Thanks


Comments

  • #2
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    If you buy this house you will own it and all its problems. In my opinion a solicitor should stop you from buying it unless the owner sorts it all out.


  • #3
    Marcusm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,632 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    A solicitor is the best one to talk to but before you spend money, how do you propose to finance it? If looking for a mortgage, you will need to have good "marketable title". The planning issue will mean that there is not a clean title and many institutions are much more restrictive on this point than before. If you are self financing, you may be able to get a bargain as many potential purchasers will be excluded if the issue is as clearly wrong as you suggest.


  • #4
    muffler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,550 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    padraig.od wrote: »
    Should I just talk to a solicitor?!
    Ulster says no YES


  • #5
    Poor Uncle Tom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,547 ✭✭✭✭Poor Uncle Tom


    padraig.od wrote: »
    Hi,

    I'm interested in buying a house that was built within the last 10 years. Investigating with the local council and going by the description on the planning application it looks like the current owner received planning permission for a dormer bungalow, but went ahead and built a two story house anyway!
    What investigating with the local council if the planning file hasn't been inspected yet?

    If it's just a case of the description of the project doesn't match what has been built, this happens quite a bit when the LA ask for changes, etc.
    padraig.od wrote: »
    Unfortunately the planning files are not available online so I will need to visit the local council to see plans/conditions/site maps etc. to confirm.
    That should answer a lot of questions. It may be best to get a professional to view the files on your behalf. There are other things to check, not just the plans.
    padraig.od wrote: »
    If I were to buy this property could the council prosecute me (as the new owner) for work to return the house to the one originally planned, or is there some sort of statute of limitations after which the council can't pursue the owner?
    This can only be answered when we know the final grant date of the planning permission.
    padraig.od wrote: »
    If I wanted to sell down the line would I need to apply for retention to comply with the original plans approved by the council?
    If the house is not built in line with the plans, retention planning permission will not make the house comply. It will grant a default planning permission for the building as constructed, not as planned.
    padraig.od wrote: »
    Would I be liable for, say, local development fees if the square footage exceeds that planned?
    Yes.
    padraig.od wrote: »
    Should I just talk to a solicitor?!
    Yes.


  • #6
    padraig.od
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 780 ✭✭✭padraig.od


    Thanks everyone, pretty much as I expected. Good point on "marketable title".

    Next step is a visit to the council.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,316 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    padraig.od wrote: »
    the current owner received planning permission for a dormer bungalow, but went ahead and built a two story house
    padraig.od wrote: »
    If I were to buy this property could the council prosecute me (as the new owner)
    I'd be wondering if they could just tear down the illegally built house?


  • #8
    Poor Uncle Tom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,547 ✭✭✭✭Poor Uncle Tom


    the_syco wrote: »
    I'd be wondering if they could just tear down the illegally built house?

    No the can't.

    Due process,

    1. Warning Letter,
    2. Enforcement Notice,
    3. Court Action,
    4. Demolition Order,
    5. Demolition Tenders,
    6. Way-hay....


  • #9
    louthyman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8 ✭louthyman


    I'm looking into buying a house which had some planning issue's but they were sorted with applying for retention. I remember reading somewhere that if its over 7 years then the council will have to approve it. Its something like if someone hasn't objected to it in 7 years then it becomes legal.


  • #10
    Poor Uncle Tom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,547 ✭✭✭✭Poor Uncle Tom


    louthyman wrote: »
    I remember reading somewhere that if its over 7 years then the council will have to approve it. Its something like if someone hasn't objected to it in 7 years then it becomes legal.

    Please expand a little on this, it really doesn't make any sense.


  • #11
    louthyman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8 ✭louthyman


    Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »
    Please expand a little on this, it really doesn't make any sense.

    TBH with you i forget what it's called but it goes along the line's of you can build yourself a house without planning or even make change's to your house and if no-one put's in a complaint then you can apply for retention and it become's a legal building.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Poor Uncle Tom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,547 ✭✭✭✭Poor Uncle Tom


    louthyman wrote: »
    TBH with you i forget what it's called but it goes along the line's of you can build yourself a house without planning or even make change's to your house and if no-one put's in a complaint then you can apply for retention and it become's a legal building.

    Very dangerous territory. It's never advisable to even think like this. Retention planning permission is for ironing out amonolies in planning permissions not circumventing planning legislation, which is illegal. (and against the forum charter to even discuss it)


  • #13
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,512 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    louthyman wrote: »
    TBH with you i forget what it's called but it goes along the line's of you can build yourself a house without planning or even make change's to your house and if no-one put's in a complaint then you can apply for retention and it become's a legal building.

    There's no statute of limitations like you mention in your post. The council can still get it demolished after any time period.


  • #14
    Marcusm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,632 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    There's no statute of limitations like you mention in your post. The council can still get it demolished after any time period.

    There is a 7 year period which renders unauthorised development unlawful but immune from planning enforcement. This is a combo of s157(4) and s160(6) Planning and Development Act 2000. If no permission was obtained, it's 7 years from starting the work. IIRC if it's not being built in accordance with the permission then it's 7 years from the expiry of the permission which is being ignored. It's a funny old world that there is a distinction favouring those who ignore the system entirely.

    I'm hoping that this clear statement of the existence of the law rather than encouraging anyone to try and build around it is permitted. I think it is within the spirit especially as the OP is not trying to get around it but is trying to consider the implications of purchasing an existing property with problems.


  • #15
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 42,171 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    There's no statute of limitations like you mention in your post. The council can still get it demolished after any time period.

    thats just not correct.


  • #16
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,512 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Marcusm wrote: »
    There is a 7 year period which renders unauthorised development unlawful but immune from planning enforcement. This is a combo of s157(4) and s160(6) Planning and Development Act 2000. If no permission was obtained, it's 7 years from starting the work. IIRC if it's not being built in accordance with the permission then it's 7 years from the expiry of the permission which is being ignored. It's a funny old world that there is a distinction favouring those who ignore the system entirely.

    I'm hoping that this clear statement of the existence of the law rather than encouraging anyone to try and build around it is permitted. I think it is within the spirit especially as the OP is not trying to get around it but is trying to consider the implications of purchasing an existing property with problems.

    That's not what i was replying to said though, he said after 7 years the council had to approve it. Feel free to correct me on this though, i'm only going on a post in these forums that was discussing something similar last week which mentioned the council could refuse the retention.


  • #17
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    There's no statute of limitations like you mention in your post. The council can still get it demolished after any time period.
    runawaybishop wrote: »
    . Feel free to correct me on this though, i'm only going on a post in these forums that was discussing something similar last week which mentioned the council could refuse the retention.

    Moderator warning

    Be careful how you compose your texts in these fora. Please do not post as if you appear to know more than you do


  • #18
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,512 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    sinnerboy wrote: »
    Moderator warning

    Be careful how you compose your texts in these fora. Please do not post as if you appear to know more than you do

    No problem :)


  • #19
    muffler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,550 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    i'm only going on a post in these forums that was discussing something similar last week which mentioned the council could refuse the retention.
    So just because someone posts something here or indeed anywhere on Boards does that mean it's correct and people like you you believe it.



    Applying that logic then what about the poor bastards who read the following post and believe it
    runawaybishop wrote: »
    There's no statute of limitations like you mention in your post. The council can still get it demolished after any time period.


  • #20
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,512 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    muffler wrote: »
    So just because someone posts something here or indeed anywhere on Boards does that mean it's correct and people like you you believe it.



    Applying that logic then what about the poor bastards who read the following post and believe it

    I do not disagree, i was misinterpreting this post. Be gentle with me ;)


  • #21
    muffler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,550 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    I do not disagree, i was misinterpreting this post. Be gentle with me ;)
    I shall wrap thee in cotton wool :D

    No, the post you quoted was actually correct. I think you may have misinterpreted it though


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Poor Uncle Tom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,547 ✭✭✭✭Poor Uncle Tom


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    The council can still get it demolished after any time period.
    As has been pointed out this is simply not the case.

    However, if a LA issues an enforcement notice inside the prescribed time period then (provided all subsequent steps are followed within their own specified periods) demolition may occur, as a last resort, and it may be years down the road when all other means of appeals have been exhausted and provided no other compromise can be met in the interim.
    Marcusm wrote: »
    There is a 7 year period which renders unauthorised development unlawful but immune from planning enforcement. This is a combo of s157(4) and s160(6) Planning and Development Act 2000. If no permission was obtained, it's 7 years from starting the work. IIRC if it's not being built in accordance with the permission then it's 7 years from the expiry of the permission which is being ignored. It's a funny old world that there is a distinction favouring those who ignore the system entirely.
    Spot on, with the addition of 9 days for each year in both periods.
    runawaybishop wrote: »
    That's not what i was replying to said though, he said after 7 years the council had to approve it. Feel free to correct me on this though, i'm only going on a post in these forums that was discussing something similar last week which mentioned the council could refuse the retention.
    I think you misread it. If you need any clarification, please ask.


  • #23
    Marcusm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,632 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »
    As has been pointed out this is simply not the case.

    However, if a LA issues an enforcement notice inside the prescribed time period then (provided all subsequent steps are followed within their own specified periods) demolition may occur, as a last resort, and it may be years down the road when all other means of appeals have been exhausted and provided no other compromise can be met in the interim.


    Spot on, with the addition of 9 days for each year in both periods.

    I think you misread it. If you need any clarification, please ask.

    And on the demolition point, it's worth noting the recent court case involving the unapproved home in a scenic area in Wicklow. It's thrown the cat amongst the pigeons a bit as the court seems to require the demolition option as a last resort to be applied where the harm done by the unapproved property is so great as to permit only demolition, ie the proportional principal being brought into play. It will certainly be interesting to see how that plays out.


  • #24
    Poor Uncle Tom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,547 ✭✭✭✭Poor Uncle Tom


    Marcusm wrote: »
    And on the demolition point, it's worth noting the recent court case involving the unapproved home in a scenic area in Wicklow. It's thrown the cat amongst the pigeons a bit as the court seems to require the demolition option as a last resort to be applied where the harm done by the unapproved property is so great as to permit only demolition, ie the proportional principal being brought into play. It will certainly be interesting to see how that plays out.

    It will, however, having read up on that particular case I feel that there are sufficient singular amololies there that make that case unique, therefore rendering anything held to be non transferable in terms of setting precedence.


Advertisement