BUYING A SITE WITH A DERELICT DWELLING ON IT

KQUB

Note: I’ve read the forum charter and realise that people can’t give professional legal advice on here. I’m planning to do my own digging on these questions as well, but I’m just curious if anyone can have a go at answering even some of them, or if anyone wants to share their own experiences or whatever. Thanks in advance if you write a response!

• Assuming there’s already a derelict dwelling (e.g. house or cottage or other building that people previously lived in) on the site you’re buying, do you need planning permission to...

a. demolish it?

b. inhabit it as is?

c. renovate it on the same footprint with no aesthetic changes (e.g. same kind of roof as before, same door and window locations, same external wall colour etc.)?

d. renovate it on the same footprint but with some aesthetic changes (e.g. different kind of roof, changes in door and window locations, different external wall colour)?

e. extend it?

• Do the answers to this question change depending on...

a. how long the dwelling has been derelict? (e.g. a few months vs. a few decades)

b. how derelict it is? (e.g. whether it’s liveable but a bit mouldy vs. a complete ruin with no windows, walls, or roof; or whether it’s considered currently safe to live in or not)

c. what county the property is in?

• Related question: Does a dwelling have to be officially certified as ‘safe to live in’ before anyone can live in it? Or is it up to the buyer to figure this out on his or her own?

Runsallday

With planning permission you can do all of the above. No certification required for it to be deemed habitable, common sense should apply. If you want to extend beyond (I think its 40sqm), you need planning permission.

To knock and rebuild even identically you need planning permission and would be subject to part l specifications.

What do you want to do?

Dose the dwelling still have an intact roof? because that is a crucial point.

awec

I don't think there's any scenario where you can buy a site and build / renovate without requiring PP?

The only question is what planning regulations will apply, and that varies depending on the state of the existing property, e.g. if it's considered uninhabitable then local needs may apply.

Cuddlesworth

• Assuming there’s already a derelict dwelling (e.g. house or cottage or other building that people previously lived in) on the site you’re buying, do you need planning permission to...

a. demolish it? Yes

b. inhabit it as is? No

c. renovate it on the same footprint with no aesthetic changes (e.g. same kind of roof as before, same door and window locations, same external wall colour etc.)? No

d. renovate it on the same footprint but with some aesthetic changes (e.g. different kind of roof, changes in door and window locations, different external wall colour)? Yes

e. extend it? Maybe

• Do the answers to this question change depending on...

a. how long the dwelling has been derelict? (e.g. a few months vs. a few decades) Yes, but its a open ended question

b. how derelict it is? (e.g. whether it’s liveable but a bit mouldy vs. a complete ruin with no windows, walls, or roof; or whether it’s considered currently safe to live in or not) Yes, again its open ended

c. what county the property is in? Yes, but they all should making a effort due to the Governments "bringing back homes" initiative

• Related question: Does a dwelling have to be officially certified as ‘safe to live in’ before anyone can live in it? Or is it up to the buyer to figure this out on his or her own? You won't get electricity/gas hooked up without being up to current standards but otherwise its up to you

I have relatives who live in an area where it's almost impossible to get planning permission and even then its got a local-only type clause however they had 2 unlived/derelict cottages on the farm roof intact doors and just about windows one had not been lived in for over 50 years both cottages were renovated and they did not need planning permission, family member live in them.

Claw Hammer

The palnning laws require planning for substantiual reconstruction. It is not defined what that means and is taken to be more than 50%.

If an existing building is refurbished it is difficult for the council to prove how much reconstruction took place but if it is been declared derelict for LPT purposes, it might cause a problem.

Cuddlesworth

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120213705#Comment_120213705

As a good example, if a neighbor had complained to planning about the property's in the post being derelict and had decent evidence that they had been unlived in for a number of years, then both property's would have probably been expected to apply for planning during or after the renovations.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120225927#Comment_120225927

Unlived-in is not the same as derelict and how would a neighbor would know unless they snuck onto their neighbor's property and took photos or something, they well knew what they were doing hence the roof was intact and the windowes and the doors keep on the house.

Claw Hammer

A bigger issue is if the building never had planning permission in the first place. In that case the break in use would mean that planning permission would be needed to resume use as a residence.

arctictree

We had a derelict property on our farm. It was very old, half of it had collapsed but the main room still had a tin roof on it. Tried for years to get planning and was constantly refused. The council kept quoting that the building had to be habitable before renovation planning would be granted.

It really annoys me that Government policy (ie a grant for renovating derelict properties) and planning policy can sometimes have conflicting aims.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120245849#Comment_120245849

There are no conflicting aims. Anything you renovate has to have planning permission or be exempt from needing planning permission. If you were refused planning permission, there must have been good reason.