Buying an unfinished house need new planning?

chikatee

The house in question is a dormer and the outside plastering, roof, windows and doors are in place. First fix wiring and plumbing is complete and the driveway is outlined. Upstairs floor and timber outlining for walls in place. This is pretty much it. There is none of the landscaping done or no septic tank. Planning permission has lapsed. They are asking €100,000 for the house and won't accept anything below this. Also the blocks are not insulated so that would be more cost.

What I need to know before anything else I guess is would I have to reapply for planning permission to continue with the works on this house. Am totally clueless on anything building related.

RITwing

Yes. You need permission for all works not completed.

chikatee

Thank you. Would you know a ball park figure for the cost of planning.

RITwing

€2k.
But make the seller sort that out
Walk away till he does.

chikatee

Ok ya didn't think of that option. I'm completely clueless. House is on a beautiful site close to my parents so is very hard to walk away from despite the work involved. All advice welcome

kieran.

RITwing wrote: »

Yes. You need permission for all works not completed.

I don't understand why you are telling the OP here that they need planninghere?? As the works described are internal works not requiring planning exceptfor possibly the Septic Tank. Depending on whether the planning was issued under the oldEPA Guidelines or the new EPA Code of Practice they may be able to go ahead andinstall there 'Septic Tank'. Landscaping + Driveway finishes would fall underexempt development in my eyes.

OP my advice would be contact the Local Council and to set up a meeting with the Local Area Planner andalso the Environmental Health Officer for the Area.

BryanF

kieran. wrote: »

I don't understand why you are telling the OP here that they need planninghere?? As the works described are internal works not requiring planning exceptfor possibly the Septic Tank. Depending on whether the planning was issued under the oldEPA Guidelines or the new EPA Code of Practice they may be able to go ahead andinstall there 'Septic Tank'. Landscaping + Driveway finishes would fall underexempt development in my eyes.

OP my advice would be contact the Local Council and to set up a meeting with the Local Area Planner andalso the Environmental Health Officer for the Area.

The original permission was not completed and particularly no septic tank was installed. Planning is required.

sydthebeat

kieran. wrote: »

I don't understand why you are telling the OP here that they need planninghere?? As the works described are internal works not requiring planning exceptfor possibly the Septic Tank. Depending on whether the planning was issued under the oldEPA Guidelines or the new EPA Code of Practice they may be able to go ahead andinstall there 'Septic Tank'. Landscaping + Driveway finishes would fall underexempt development in my eyes.

OP my advice would be contact the Local Council and to set up a meeting with the Local Area Planner andalso the Environmental Health Officer for the Area.

if the original permission was not completed in full prior to its expiry, any works to complete require planning permission.

in laois you actually are required to apply for permission to 'retain and complete' as the existing unfinished works are deemed unauthorized as they were not completed within the allowed time frame.

under no circumstances is the installation of a septic tank / effluent treatment system allowed without planning, regardless of where under 'old or new' EPA. If planning is expired, it doesnt exist.

these situations are quite commonplace through rural ireland today.

kieran.

sydthebeat wrote: »

any works to complete require planning permission.

I think you find that 'works' and development are not related the Local Authority is only corcerned with development, after all one can only apply to the council for permssion for developement.

For the level of construction that the OP states has been completed the Local Authority can not argue that the development to be substantially complete, and there for Section 40 of the PDA2000 applies? In fact I think one could argue that the developement is complete with outstand planning compliance issues. The original applicant applied for permission a house and by the the OP desciption a house has been built, non compliance with conditions of the original planning is a separate enforcement matter.

Sydthebeat is correct if a new DWWTS is to be installed a new planning application is required. However neither basic landscaping and the internal works decribed by the OP fall under the term of developement.

sydthebeat

kieran. wrote: »

I think you find that 'works' and development are not related the Local Authority is only corcerned with development, after all one can only apply to the council for permssion for developement.

For the level of construction that the OP states has been completed the Local Authority can not argue that the development to be substantially complete, and there for Section 40 of the PDA2000 applies? In fact I think one could argue that the developement is complete with outstand planning compliance issues. The original applicant applied for permission a house and by the the OP desciption a house has been built, non compliance with conditions of the original planning is a separate enforcement matter.

Sydthebeat is correct if a new DWWTS is to be installed a new planning application is required. However neither basic landscaping and the internal works decribed by the OP fall under the term of developement.

is it a 'house' if it cannot be lived in?? i would argue it has to be habitable to be consider a house, and therefore the structure as stands isnt habitable, therefore isnt a "house" and therefore requires planning permission to complete.

i know by experience that my local authorities hold this view point also.

section 40 has nothing to do with it as the permission has expired.

also, section 4 1 h is superceded by the fact that the initial planning permission has not been "taken up" in full therefore, the development as stands can be considered unauthorized and is in need of retention.

You may have differing views which are arguable and i wont disagree, but im just giving the experience i have had in relation to these kinds of issues which arise quite often, and which my local authorities have applied policies to.

kieran.

I agree that we have differing views and I believe we may be dealing with different local authoritys which would explain our differing experiences.
That why I believe the best advice to the OP is to sit down with the local authority to ascertain there position on the development as it stands.

sydthebeat

kieran. wrote: »

I agree that we have differing views and I believe we may be dealing with different local authoritys which would explain our differing experiences.
That why I believe the best advice to the OP is to sit down with the local authority to ascertain there position on the development as it stands.

on this we definitely agree

ive seen different local authorities have diametrically opposed views on certain issues

RITwing

kieran. wrote: »

exceptfor possibly the Septic Tank. Landscaping + Driveway finishes would fall underexempt development in my eyes..

Septic tank is a certianty to require permision in and of itself alone.

I disagree with you on the issue of external works - not exempt.

RITwing

The over arching point is the OP should literaly not "buy" these issues.
The vendor must sort them ( or perhaps you can issue a cert there )

kieran.

RITwing wrote: »

The over arching point is the OP should literaly not"buy" these issues.
The vendor must sort them ( or perhaps you can issue a cert there )

I disagree that the vendor must pay for anything (all the better if the OP if the can make them ).

IMO The OP should satisfy themselves that they know exactly what they are getting themselves in for. If the sales price is sufficiently weighted that they are getting the required value for the project as it stands and they have engaged a suitably qualified consultant to guide them through the processes necessary to protect their investment I would see no reason for them to walk away as you recommend.

At the end of the day it’s a major investment and the OP needs to ensure all due diligence is completed prior to proceeding with any part of the transaction.

kieran.

RITwing wrote: »

Septic tank is a certianty to require permision in and of itself alone.

I disagree with you on the issue of external works - not exempt.

As stated above a new DWWTS requires Planning.

Ancillary works which have not been complete with the lifespan of the permission do not require new permission to be completed once the main development has been completed.

PDA 2000 Section 40
(2) (a) Subsection (1) shall not apply—

(iii) in the case of a house, shop, office or other building which itself has been completed, in relation to the provision of any structure or works included in the relevant permission and which are either necessary for or ancillary or incidental to the use of the building in accordance with that permission,

The question is whether in the eyes of the local authority the development is 'complete' and only they/a court of law can answer that question.

RITwing

We shall agree to disagree too.

BryanF

kieran. wrote: »

I disagree that the vendor must pay for anything (all the better if the OP if the can make them ).

IMO The OP should satisfy themselves that they know exactly what they are getting themselves in for. If the sales price is sufficiently weighted that they are getting the required value for the project as it stands and they have engaged a suitably qualified consultant to guide them through the processes necessary to protect their investment I would see no reason for them to walk away as you recommend.

At the end of the day it’s a major investment and the OP needs to ensure all due diligence is completed prior to proceeding with any part of the transaction.

Contradictory statement.
Due diligence will dictate that the OP doesn't move forward unless planning is sought to regularise the property

BryanF

kieran. wrote: »

As stated above a new DWWTS requires Planning.

Ancillary works which have not been complete with the lifespan of the permission do not require new permission to be completed once the main development has been completed.

PDA 2000 Section 40
(2) (a) Subsection (1) shall not apply—

(iii) in the case of a house, shop, office or other building which itself has been completed, in relation to the provision of any structure or works included in the relevant permission and which are either necessary for or ancillary or incidental to the use of the building in accordance with that permission,

The question is whether in the eyes of the local authority the development is 'complete' and only they/a court of law can answer that question.

No septic tank has been installed. Planning has lapsed. Planning required.

RITwing

BryanF wrote: »

Due diligence will dictate that the OP doesn't move forward unless planning is sought to regularise the property

by the vendor

mickman

Hi guys

I'm buying unfinished house too but it's in estate so it has mains sewage and water

House is build and first fix - presume no planning required as there is no septic tank ?

Also I'm going to ask for the following

Structural survey
Cert of compliance of build to planning
Fire cert
Ber
Wiring cert

Do I need all the above and any others I am forgetting

Thanks for any help

sydthebeat

No fire cert on domestic houses.
No wiring cert until finished and tested.
No ber as it isn't habitable. Provisional ber may be required.

mickman

sydthebeat wrote: »

No fire cert on domestic houses.
No wiring cert until finished and tested.
No ber as it isn't habitable. Provisional ber may be required.

Sound. Thanks a mill

So just compliance with planning ?

Any need of new planning ?