i was interested in buying a site but...

mcneil

Me and my sister have been looking to buy a site for a holiday home in sligo for a few years now, Weve came across a site that planning has lapsed for for few years now however theres an old cottage on it with some rights to cut a bog.

My question is, seeing as theres been planning on this site to knock the old cottage for building a new home, is it possible we can just renovate the inside of the old cottage instead without going for planning. We wont be changing the structure of the building or main any changes to the floor plan of it.

Theres an old septic tank not been used in 9 years. If we do decided to just do the cottage up, will we need planning for a new septic tank or will this one be able to be used again without any need for planning.

Metric Tensor

Technically if a building has been unoccupied for a certain period of time you need planning permission to reinhabit it. (I'm not sure if the duration is the same for all LAs but it's 5 years for at least one)

I have never seen this rule enforced.

Also there is no obligation to carry out the work for which permission was obtained. It was permission to carry out a project if the applicant wished so apart from what I say above there is no reason why the cottage could not be renovated.

You do need planning permission for a new effluent treatment system if you wish to put one in and it makes sense to do so to protect yourself from future trouble and to protect the environment too.

I have found most local authorities look very favourably on plans to renovate abandoned houses because they (correctly) thinks it better for someone to be living in it that for it to become derelict.

Talk to a local planning professional in the area. It would be well worth a quick consult.

mcneil

Metric Tensor wrote: »

Technically if a building has been unoccupied for a certain period of time you need planning permission to reinhabit it. (I'm not sure if the duration is the same for all LAs but it's 5 years for at least one)

I have never seen this rule enforced.

Also there is no obligation to carry out the work for which permission was obtained. It was permission to carry out a project if the applicant wished so apart from what I say above there is no reason why the cottage could not be renovated.

You do need planning permission for a new effluent treatment system if you wish to put one in and it makes sense to do so to protect yourself from future trouble and to protect the environment too.

I have found most local authorities look very favourably on plans to renovate abandoned houses because they (correctly) thinks it better for someone to be living in it that for it to become derelict.

Talk to a local planning professional in the area. It would be well worth a quick consult.

Why need planning for a new treatment unit if the septic tank was renewed just before the house stopped being lived in. There was new works carried out in the percolation area and new septic tank just before the owner died. What I understand, one didn't need new planning back then to put in same as was there in the ground. How would this stand now thou! Is it just a case of getting an engineer's report from when it was replaced.

Metric Tensor

No. They needed planning permission back then too. They just didn't bother getting it. EDIT: Apologies - misread your post. If they replaced/renewed like with like then in my opinion they did not require planning permission. Mind you they most likely put in a new percolation area which would not be like for like.

If an engineer supervised the installation you could get details from him as to what was done and pass these details to your own engineer to get an opinion.

shugy

Metric Tensor wrote: »

No. They needed planning permission back then too. They just didn't bother getting it. EDIT: Apologies - misread your post. If they replaced/renewed like with like then in my opinion they did not require planning permission. Mind you they most likely put in a new percolation area which would not be like for like.

If an engineer supervised the installation you could get details from him as to what was done and pass these details to your own engineer to get an opinion.

What if the OP replaced like with like himself. Whos to know it was renewd if its working properly. Not that im suggesting he do it but if its ok to do, then why the need for planning. ISnt it if its there for 7 years, then one can put retention in for it. Infact, can they not put in retention for it now for the new perc area?

Metric Tensor

Anyone can apply for retention at any point - the seven years that you hear bandied about is a limit on the commencement of enforcement proceedings.

As I said - like-for-like would, in my opinion, be considered repair/maintenance work so it would not need planning permission. It's worth noting that my opinion isn't worth the bits and bytes through which it's transmitted so the OP would need to check with the local planners.

The problem is that if what's there now is undersized/under-designed or contributing to ponding, flooding or pollution of the area then "like-for-like" is no good - an upgrade is required. This is where the situation becomes more awkward because you are then changing the effluent treatment (for the better) and this needs planning permission. In the normal course of events most local authorities would be delighted to see you applying for permission to put in a better effluent treatment system - but there are specific associated issues and circumstances in some cases that can cause problems - your engineer will know.


The "who's to know" is the same as any other form of law-breaking. Just because no-one caught you doesn't mean you didn't break the law and you have left fairly substantial evidence that you did!