planning permission - Dreaded 10 year clause

daveg

We have just got planning permission granted on our site in Co Galway. However one of the 15 clauses are we cannot sell the house for 10 years. This really fúcks up our plans as we had planned to build, live in the house for 3 to 4 years then sell to build again. We have just done this on our current home (built 3 years ago - now selling) to reduce our mortgage. Is there anyway to get out of these 10 year clauses?

DonkeyStyle \o/

You could fake your own death?

yop

That is a bee utch dave, we have a 5 year clause on ours. 10 is rare

netwhizkid

thats a good thing its the likes of yourself that is driving up property prices. my pet hate speculators. although i would do the same thing had i the cash. Build a big home and live there until you die like most other people. If you have kids, moving is not good and let them settle in and make friends.

Regards netwhizkid

astec123

we cannot sell the house

What about letting it out?

daveg

netwhizkid wrote:

thats a good thing its the likes of yourself that is driving up property prices. my pet hate speculators. although i would do the same thing had i the cash. Build a big home and live there until you die like most other people. If you have kids, moving is not good and let them settle in and make friends.

Regards netwhizkid

Thanks for that tosser. You don't even know me and your making assumptions about me and my family. For your info I'm moving 3 miles down the road. I suppose your the type that goes around keying the neighbours BMW out of jealousy. How am I driving housing prices up? Builders are buying land around us selling 1 off homes. There the ones making the massive profit. All I'm tyng to do is reduce my mortgage.

Can't even rent it out accorinding to the restriction.

lomb

seems unfair and is part of the nanny state we live in so u can-

appeal to an bord pleannala,

or sell it as is i doubt ul lose anything

or live in it for 10 years, thats the point of the clause...

netwhizkid

Originally Posted by daveg
I suppose your the type that goes around keying the neighbours BMW out of jealousy. How am I driving housing prices up?

Your talking about me making asumptions, I have never carried out an act of vandalism in my life. Yes it is speculators like yourself, buying and not staying long if at all, this is driving up the cost of property. Although i understand your plight, perhaps there should be an exempetion made for people in your scenario but not for others eg. 2nd home buyers.

Regards netwhizkid

daveg

netwhizkid wrote:

Your talking about me making asumptions, I have carried out an act of vandalism in my life.

So I was right. It takes all types I suppose :rolleyes: So your have a problem with someone selling their home 2 to 3 years after living in it.

yop

Netwhizz - I can see you point but to put Dave in the same category as a builder who builds one off houses with the sole purpose of selling, which is continually happening in Mayo, compared to Dave a private builder who has a 10 year occupancy clause imposed on him is typical of the double standards in this island.

Why are builders getting away with not having occupancy clauses imposed?

They are driving prices up, not the likes of Dave

lomb

whats driving up house prices is a combination of supply and demand, low interest rates, net immigration and panick. would seem like a good idea to build more houses tbh to me anyway. everyone is out to make money at someone elses 'expense' thats the free economy for u, we shouldnt begrudge it we should join them. theres always risk in any enterprise and like dave found out land developing is a risky business, what if he was turned down permission, then the land would be worthless nearly!
generally speaking from my dealings with developers they are big gamblers,and take risks that the rest of us probably wouldnt not least because they have big pockets and can sustain losses that we couldnt. so they have a bank of many sites etc, just like property investors dont care if 1 or 3 or 5 of their 10 properties is unlet, they have deep pockets and can sustain losses.

patrido

we all want to live in them, but too many one off houses in the country are a bad thing.

they increase dependence on oil and cars - public transport will never be able to adequately serve them. they put a strain on services such as sewerage, and electricity. ones built in the not too distant past are a key contributor to ground water pollution, and carbon emissions. and they can (and often do) blight the landscape, creating ribbons of development all over the country.

a real nanny state would say that no one could build in the country, and would focus all it's resources into creating urban communities, that were properly served by schools, services and fast, efficient public transport.

instead, the planning laws, and county development plans allow for "local need" and couple this with occupancy clauses. The whole idea of these are to enhance and maintain *existing* rural communities. People who grew up in an area, and continue to have a link to the area are allowed to build in that area, on condition that they make a long term commitment. It allows local people to build-to-live, and not build to rent or sell. And they are flexible enough to allow people to sell in the event of financial hardship, etc.

of course, this is not implemented consistently. councillors and tds pull favours in order to get votes. and the government will relax the requirements over time for the same reason.

you talk about builders buying land, building houses and selling them for profit, well that's exactly what you are doing, albeit on a smaller scale. you make paying off your mortgage early sound like dropping debt to the third world !

qazxsw

netwhizkid wrote:

thats a good thing its the likes of yourself that is driving up property prices. my pet hate speculators. although i would do the same thing had i the cash. Build a big home and live there until you die like most other people. If you have kids, moving is not good and let them settle in and make friends.

Regards netwhizkid

think you might be suffering from altitude sickness so far up there on the high moral ground ???

lomb

qazxsw wrote:

think you might be suffering from altitude sickness so far up there on the high moral ground ???

aye, if he had the money hed be out there doing it himself , its getting harder and harder to get ahead now with increases in laws etc, there was a time u could build whatever u want and needed no planning not that long ago, then u needed planning, then there were building regs, now there are occupancy clauses, requirements to speak irish and other stupid lark. whos land is it anyway thats the question?

prospect

daveg, I don't think an appeal will make any difference, as your plan is exactly what the councils want to prevent.

Personally, i take my hat off to you, after building one house, I never want to see another builder/plumber/electrician again. (nothing personal guys)

Also, isn't there talk of an introduction of captial gains tax on houses, will that affect daveg's scenario?

yop

Patrido - I take it you live in a city then and have not lived in the country?

threebeards

Seems to me that Dave has the right idea, i.e. trading up. There's nothing wrong with it, it's a natural progression and it has the added benefit (if the timing is right) of reducing his mortgage. Times are different now to what they were in our parents times. It's a bugger about the 10 year clause - as yop said, it's rare. Good luck with it.

netwhizkid wrote:

my pet hate speculators. although i would do the same thing had i the cash.

:rolleyes:

lomb

yop wrote:

Netwhizz - I can see you point but to put Dave in the same category as a builder who builds one off houses with the sole purpose of selling, which is continually happening in Mayo, compared to Dave a private builder who has a 10 year occupancy clause imposed on him is typical of the double standards in this island.

Why are builders getting away with not having occupancy clauses imposed?

They are driving prices up, not the likes of Dave

dave is a builder or a small scale land developer, to call him anything else is ridiculous. paying down a mortgage is a smokescreen for what he is doing. he is developing land, taking advantage of tax laws by not paying capital gains tax on resale , and doing it again every couple of years to basically amass alot of money. this is a business and there is nothing wrong with it in my opinion. i wish him luck in it. builders build large numbers of units by buying 'hope' land. this is land that is on the town edge periphery and is zoned agricultural. basically it is hoped that eventually the town expands and the land is rezoned residential. when this happens they submit plans for vast numbers of units. this is a gamble as it may be rezoned as something of lesser value like say a park can u imagine paying half a million an acre for land that is essentially worthless and then 'hope' it is rezoned soon, as interest is acrueing. this takes alot of money and balls also.

they also buy what are known as infill sites, these are sites in towns that have never been developed like a big garden etc.

the last form of developing is whats called demolition and reconstruction using up unused space and making it bigger and modern.

the most profitable is the hope land. this is where the money is but basically it has become very dear because of the numbers of builders chasing it, causing price rises to 500 grand an acre outside dublin.

i doubt any builder is creating one off houses except in land that is zoned residential within the town borders. they simply wont get planning outside, if they are then that sets a precedent, so if u have one, take it, the case number etc and appeal to an bord pleanela, stating the other precedent. then the condition will be removed, i am nearly sure of that, this only applys if planning ion that precedent was granted on the current development plan...

the_syco

patrido wrote:

we all want to live in them, but too many one off houses in the country are a bad thing.

If you have 2 choices

1) To build in your familys' land
or
2) Buy land to build on, near to a town, which would make it even dearer?

I'd pick 1), and so would alot of other people. Alot of my relatives have done just that, in Meath, Cork, and Kerry.

One-off housing is not the problem, the problem is that some people go the "cheap" route, and don't get a sceptic tank, proper planning, etc, and end up f*cking up the locale.

prospect

the_syco wrote:

One-off housing is not the problem, the problem is that some people go the "cheap" route, and don't get a sceptic tank, proper planning, etc, and end up f*cking up the locale.

Bingo, nail & head.....

patrido

yop wrote:

Patrido - I take it you live in a city then and have not lived in the country?

Nope, I live in the country - in fact I'm building at the moment, and my planning permission was very difficult to get, despite local need, and on family land. It was granted with an occupancy clause, and sterilisation clause for the remaining lands. I can't remember how long the occupancy clause is for - it doesn't matter to me.

I think the planning laws and development plans are perfectly fair... it's the inconsistent planners, corrupt politicians and greedy developers that I have a problem with.

patrido

the_syco wrote:

If you have 2 choices

1) To build in your familys' land
or
2) Buy land to build on, near to a town, which would make it even dearer?

I agree completely. That was my point - people who have family land, and are going to stay there and enhance the community should be allowed to build. Carpetbaggers should not.

the_syco wrote:

One-off housing is not the problem, the problem is that some people go the "cheap" route, and don't get a sceptic tank, proper planning, etc, and end up f*cking up the locale.

I agree about planning, ignoring building regs, etc. However, if wholesale one-off housing was allowed to everyone who wanted it, it would soon become a disaster.

daveg

Firstly thanks for the sympathy guy's. To answer some questions/respond to comments...

yop wrote:

Why are builders getting away with not having occupancy clauses imposed?

This is what pissed me off the most. The clause states a letter of occupancy has to be sent to the planning office once the residents move into the house. This clause does not effect builders as they will not be taking up residency. It will only effect the buyers who move into the house.

lomb wrote:

like dave found out land developing is a risky business, what if he was turned down permission, then the land would be worthless nearly!

It was a calculated risk as the land had outline planning. They would have had to grant planning for something.

patrido wrote:

we all want to live in them, but too many one off houses in the country are a bad thing. They increase dependence on oil and cars - public transport will never be able to adequately serve them. they put a strain on services such as sewerage, and electricity.

I totally disagree except for your comment about use of cars. How does a house in the county put a extra strain on electricity? Do we use more power in the country? Compare our situation to where we lived before moving out of the city. We lived in Knocknacarra in Galway with 100,000 other people and your telling me that's a better environment?

threebeards wrote:

Seems to me that Dave has the right idea, i.e. trading up. There's nothing wrong with it, it's a natural progression and it has the added benefit (if the timing is right) of reducing his mortgage. Times are different now to what they were in our parents times. It's a bugger about the 10 year clause - as yop said, it's rare. Good luck with it. :rolleyes:

This is exactly how I see it. Fair enough we are reducing our mortgage slightly but we have also designed a bigger house and can now afford to finish the house as we wanted. I'm not talking about me and the misses driving round in Toureg jeeps. Whats wrong with trading up/reducing your mortgage?

daveg

patrido wrote:

I agree completely. That was my point - people who have family land, and are going to stay there and enhance the community should be allowed to build. Carpetbaggers should not.

I hope this was not directed at me. I have lived in the area we build our house all my life so I'm not a carpetbagger (whatever that is).

lomb

daveg wrote:

This is what pissed me off the most. The clause states a letter of occupancy has to be sent to the planning office once the residents move into the house. This clause does not effect builders as they will not be taking up residency. It will only effect the buyers who move into the house.

reapply for planning under a limited company? might have to sell the land to it first though paying stamp duty, also ul have to then pay capital gains tax twice, once in the company and once the money is distributed to u!, ask the planning office before attempting any of it.

my advice is hold it for a year or two till prices rise a bit and flog it to someone who wants to live there for 10+years.

edit:/ or build it and flog it immediately after it is built telling the planning office that U are the developer, if they disagree with this take them to an bord pleannala. i cant see why an individual cant be a developer and it has to be a limited company...

lomb

daveg wrote:

I'm not talking about me and the misses driving round in Toureg jeeps.

driving around in a toureg is a good thing, it means u have paid vrt, that means money is being redistributed into the economy and not hoarded.

patrido

daveg wrote:

I totally disagree except for your comment about use of cars. How does a house in the county put a extra strain on electricity? Do we use more power in the country?

Bigger houses do use more power but that's not the point. The ESB are spending €3.5 billion on upgrading their network, to keep up with increasing demand for both power and connections.

Upgrading facilities (electric, water, sewerage, roads, whatever...) to serve a new estate with 100 houses is much more efficient, and cost effective than serving 100 new one off houses.

I personally moaned about paying 1300 yoyos to the ESB for my connection. However, they have totally upgraded poles, transformers and lines in the whole area, because of existing and anticipated increases in demand, and my 1300 yoyos certainly didn't pay for all the work that was done.

daveg wrote:

Compare our situation to where we lived before moving out of the city. We lived in Knocknacarra in Galway with 100,000 other people and your telling me that's a better environment?

I'm saying it's better for the environment - cars, pollution, landscape, etc. But it's a fair point - bad planning and bad building is not making urban communities nice places to live, through schools, transport, etc.

yop

I think the planning laws and development plans are perfectly fair... it's the inconsistent planners, corrupt politicians and greedy developers that I have a problem with.

Apologise for my presumptions, I assumed u were someone who lives in a city, drives through the sticks, sees someone building and decides to lodge a complaint or contact An Taisce, which is becoming farsical in my neck of the woods at the moment.

I am from the same frame of mind, we have a 5 year occupancy clause but it does not bother us as we hope to next leave or have to leave the area.

As you said it is the planners who are to me at fault, the lack of consistency is getting peoples back up, take our build, across the road a family built a house, 4 years ago, when I would have thought things were a bit more easy going on the planning front, they were blocked for bay windows, we were allowed.

In the area dormers over the last 2 years have been blocked, u guessed it, we have 2.

A massive rumpus was kicked up about treatment plants etc, we had our perc test done and a treatment unit was recommeneded, guess what, on planning we have a septic tank!

these kind of things are daft, it they set a rule, stick to it

patrido

daveg wrote:

I hope this was not directed at me. I have lived in the area we build our house all my life so I'm not a carpetbagger (whatever that is).

No, this wasn't directed at you

I'm talking about the general issue of one off housing.

daveg

patrido wrote:

Bigger houses do use more power but that's not the point. The ESB are spending €3.5 billion on upgrading their network, to keep up with increasing demand for both power and connections.

It's gone up dramatically since you paid E1300. I understand connection is now between 2-5K. Also I am convinced the entire cost associated with the ESB connecting a home out the country is paid by the connection fee. If you build a house and the nearest transformer is at a max number of connections the new customer has to pay the ESB for a new transformer (approx 15K). As new houses are built and connected to the transformer the owners pay you back a portion of the 15K paid out. This is what our builder told us anyway.

prospect

This must be fairly new daveg.
We contacted the ESB when we got connected last year, and we were told the fee was ~€1300 regardless of what work had to be under taken by them to have us on the grid.
They had to remove a pole, and put down two new ones, and switch the direction of the line in our case.

patrido

daveg wrote:

It's gone up dramatically since you paid E1300. I understand connection is now between 2-5K. Also I am convinced the entire cost associated with the ESB connecting a home out the country is paid by the connection fee. If you build a house and the nearest transformer is at a max number of connections the new customer has to pay the ESB for a new transformer (approx 15K). As new houses are built and connected to the transformer the owners pay you back a portion of the 15K paid out. This is what our builder told us anyway.

jaysus, if that's the case, depending on where u live, between the fee to the council and the esb you could be paying out 20-30k in charges.

daveg

I could be wrong. I'm only going on what I was told. I'll let you know when we reach that stage.

patrido

yop wrote:

Apologise for my presumptions, I assumed u were someone who lives in a city, drives through the sticks, sees someone building and decides to lodge a complaint or contact An Taisce, which is becoming farsical in my neck of the woods at the moment.

Hehehe, no worries

Do you mind me asking what part of Mayo you're in?

yop wrote:

these kind of things are daft, it they set a rule, stick to it

agreed... i can maybe see the point of trying to define a certain look for an area, but every planner has different ideas, and they all end up contradicting each other. how long before some planner makes eagles on piers, and lit up santas on roofs compulsary

yop

Lads paid 1343 Euro for a 12KVA connection 3 weeks ago. 16KVA is 1800 odd euro

yop

Around the Croagh Patrick area

patrido

yop wrote:

Around the Croagh Patrick area

beautiful! i've spent lots of time on collanmore island in clew bay, with stunning views of croagh patrick.

beats the hell out of a flat piece of land in meath

Brando_ie

Appeal the specific condition to An Bord Plenala. They have the capacity to delete the clause, retain it in its current form or possibly reduce it to the more common 5 years. There is no gaurentee and I would hazzard a guess that the 10 years has been imposed to prevent people 'abusing' the new rural housing guidelines by developing family lands only to sell on shortly afterwards. I imagine the Bord would have identified this and would uphold the condition so as not to open the flood gates. That said, make a good case, spend your €200 and take your chances?. Warning, process can be slow!!

daveg

Brando_ie wrote:

Appeal the specific condition to An Bord Plenala.

I presume if we do this the rest of the planning will remain uneffected? In other words Bord Plenala won't turn around and take planning off us would they? (It's a stupid question but better to be safer than sorry).

yop

Not build there though lad, waaaaaaaaay too expensive for a site, excess of 130k for 1/2 acre.

the_syco

yop wrote:

and decides to lodge a complaint or contact An Taisce, which is becoming farsical in my neck of the woods at the moment.

As bad as the two foreigners in Leitrim, who complain about any buildings, as they want to keep it looking like "old Ireland", when they moved there 20 odd years ago? And I'm even talking about the houses over the hills, which they can't even see!!!

rooferPete

Hi,

I would be very careful about appealing AFAIK the whole planning permission is considered not just one point or condition.

I think the average time for a family to live in one house is 8 years, I must have read that in a trade magazine but it's easy to check with the central statistics office.

lomb it's a long time since anyone could build what and where they wanted 1963 is when the planning act came in, that said I was given a sketch on childs copy book for an extension that had planning permission.

.

lomb

rooferPete wrote:

]that said I was given a sketch on childs copy book for an extension that had planning permission.

.

the good old days:D

Macy

If you claimed in the planning permission local need then I think it's fair enough of the council to put in this clause.

It's people speculating that make it harder for people who want to build on family land and live there for the foreseeable to get planning themselves. However you like to dress it up, it's basically property development and speculation.

I'm pretty anti the planners in this country, and the likes of an taisce that block rural housing - however, I think the 10 year clause is a good thing.

Actually in Wicklow you probably wouldn't get permission so soon for another house anyway.

mrblack

We have an appeal in an Bord Pleanaula at the moment and my understanding of the way that the Board operates is the same as Roofer Pete. Submitting an appeal could result in an unpredictable outcome if the planner decided to look at other aspects of the planning approval-Very risky strategy.

BTW I wonder how such a clause could in reality be enforced. What happens if the occupier loses his job or cannot continue to pay the mortgage. Is there a gnome in the council that actually enforces these clauses-would a buyers solicitor even check this out? They usually just check that the seller has good title and there aren't any outstanding liens/debts secured on the property afaik

mrblack

rooferPete wrote:

Hi,

I would be very careful about appealing AFAIK the whole planning permission is considered not just one point or condition.

I think the average time for a family to live in one house is 8 years, I must have read that in a trade magazine but it's easy to check with the central statistics office.

lomb it's a long time since anyone could build what and where they wanted 1963 is when the planning act came in, that said I was given a sketch on childs copy book for an extension that had planning permission.

.

zep

There is usually a clause which states that the bank/mortage company can sell the house if the owner cannot make their payments. The owner cannot sell the house until the stated time limit has passed. It's not just a matter of selling, the bank/mortage company even has to contact the council to arrange the details. The reason they slapped the 10 years down was probally because they checked for previous planning in your name. Seeing that you got planning within the last 3ish years and were looking for planning again on another site, they wanted to prevent you doing the same thing. It's a pain but thats the way it going now, getting worse aswell...

Doper Than U

This is the kind of Bullsh*t that drives me up the wall. We bought 50 acres in Enniskerry 4 years ago with the intention of living on it, raising a family, having horses and basically having a smallholding. As you can imagine, 50 acres in Enniskerry is a LOT of money. Planning permission is looking more and more like an impossibility, mainly because the CoCo holds the beliefs outlined here :

we all want to live in them, but too many one off houses in the country are a bad thing.

they increase dependence on oil and cars - public transport will never be able to adequately serve them. they put a strain on services such as sewerage, and electricity. ones built in the not too distant past are a key contributor to ground water pollution, and carbon emissions. and they can (and often do) blight the landscape, creating ribbons of development all over the country.

a real nanny state would say that no one could build in the country, and would focus all it's resources into creating urban communities, that were properly served by schools, services and fast, efficient public transport.

instead, the planning laws, and county development plans allow for "local need" and couple this with occupancy clauses. The whole idea of these are to enhance and maintain *existing* rural communities. People who grew up in an area, and continue to have a link to the area are allowed to build in that area, on condition that they make a long term commitment. It allows local people to build-to-live, and not build to rent or sell. And they are flexible enough to allow people to sell in the event of financial hardship, etc.

of course, this is not implemented consistently. councillors and tds pull favours in order to get votes. and the government will relax the requirements over time for the same reason.

you talk about builders buying land, building houses and selling them for profit, well that's exactly what you are doing, albeit on a smaller scale. you make paying off your mortgage early sound like dropping debt to the third world !

Now, most of that is utter crap when applied to my particular situation. First of all, both myself and my partner work from home. That means that currently, I travel to the land twice a day to check the horses burning lots of petrol (it's a big dirty jeep, y'know, the kind that actually drives through mucky fields and tows trailers full of horse or hay.. you know.. those things that come from farming?? Thinking about upgrading to a Touareg too.. nice jeeps those). If I lived there, I would travel less in that locale, and burn less fuel (which happens to be something I care about).

I also wish to build an eco house (which many planners seem to hate.. like "solar power" is a dirty word). That means I'm looking into stuff like geothermal heating, reed beds and solar power, because it really does bother me that people won't take responsibility for their carbon emissions (traffic jams in major cities anyone? what a stink!.. and they want to pile more people into these areas?? <sarcasm> Good idea! </sarcasm> ). On top of that, my desire is to grow my own food, and raise my own animals for slaughter organically (actually, I intend to go better than organic), in an effort to not only eat well, but reduce my dependance on imported food that sullies our atmosphere).

Now.. I think my environmental sensibilities are reasonably well placed. Why should I not live on my land provided I build a house that is in keeping with the countryside?

Because of greater fuel consumption? : Not in my case! In fact you'd get less!
Because I wasn't born there? : Well, how constitutional is that? Rural people can move to Dublin, placing ever greater strain on our public transport system (increasing fuel consumption) and food resources (which are coming more and more from outside Ireland, because farmers are having such a raw deal atm).

Tell you what.. how about farmers /rural people are no longer allowed to sell their land to anyone who isn't from the area? Now how do you think people will feel about that when they no longer want to farm, or when they wish to move somewhere else? That way, land and house prices don't go up, farmland is kept pristine (in fact.. so pristine it'll soon be unusable!), and the farmer can continue getting screwed by Tescos and their insistance on cheap food.

Bottom line, if you can buy the land, you should be able to live on it. Co Co's need perhaps to look at why farmers are so eager to sell their land in small pieces. Hint: Because they get good money for it! If the Council don't want people building one off houses then they should prevent the land being sold to outsiders. That way nobody gets ripped off.

Stuffing more and more people into cities is hardly helpful to either the city or the
country. And where do you think all the food for those cities comes from?? Imported on filthy jets and hauled across the country from farms in massive trucks. Hardly clean or environmentally friendly.


*Sorry for the long post, this particular issue really gets my goat. Good luck to all those honest people who just want planning for a house*

Incidentally, we were looking for a house with land to buy a while ago, as we were close to giving up on the 50 acres. We found a beautiful house in Wicklow and put in an offer, only to be told that we were not allowed to buy it as we were from Dublin, and not local. Utter sh*te.

Cuauhtemoc

his is the kind of Bullsh*t that drives me up the wall. We bought 50 acres in Enniskerry 4 years ago with the intention of living on it, raising a family, having horses and basically having a smallholding. As you can imagine, 50 acres in Enniskerry is a LOT of money. Planning permission is looking more and more like an impossibility, mainly because the CoCo holds the beliefs outlined here :

Well said DTU.

I've often wondered about the legality of having to be from an area to buy there. Someone better informed may be able to tell me. But i thought we had some sort of Constituional freedom of movement or something( i must be wrong though).

I'm from the country originally and want to move back there. Not live in a pokey apartment block or a huge housing estate in a 3 bed semi. There is still more a community feel and(this is just my opinion, no research to support) a better place to bring up kids.

Will be in the same position myself soon as we are looking to move out to the country buy some land, use some green energy etc.
Fortunately i was originally from the area(unless there's a "You haven't lived here in the last 5 years clause" or something).
Best of luck with your house btw.

C.

lomb

Cuauhtemoc wrote:

unless there's a "You haven't lived here in the last 5 years clause" or something).

C.

there is i believe, at the end of the day u are better buying an existing house on land like a farm house if u want that sort of thing. the only real way u will get planning in an area zoned as 'an area of outstanding natural beauty' is if 1. u enhance the ammenity of the land like a horse stud or farm sheep or something and u need proof of involvement in say the bloodstock industry.
2. u *need* to live there-one way u will get it is if u say u need to look after ur parents in their old age if they live on the neighbouring land or u are too poor to live elsewhere or u need to look after the horses on the stud farm u have built several years before.....
3. u are from the area- i think its 7 or 8 years from what i can remember.

ALL 3 of these conditions need fullfillment not just 1, trust me ive looked into it.

u can systematically go about fullfilling those conditions by buying land and a few cheap ponies from the travellers, get planning for a horse stud, become a member of the irish bloodstock foundation or whatever they call it, buy a cheap cottage and live there for the time period,etc etc, but why bother....also they may change the development plan and the criteria.i suppose u may make 2 or 3 hundred grand, in wicklow it would be alot more, but then u have to follow the above steps meticulously if u stand any chance of it and there are easier ways of making money from property. also remember there will be a 10 year clause in it also.....

Doper Than U

Lomb, you are right, those are the "supposed" stipulations. The facts are that I have a number of horses on the land (have had for the last four years). Wicklow CoCo hate horses. They detest people who use the horse excuse for wanting to build a house, so you will seriously damage your chances by playing the "horse" card. Trust me.. I have been refused on these very grounds. The planners actually said that if I wanted to build a barn for my horses (not an outrageous thing to build on a farm one would think), I would have to sign a waiver saying I would never apply for a house, and if I did apply, such an application would be immediately refused. For God's sake, if you're looking for planning in Wicklow, don't mention horses!!

As it happens, we want to have other livestock on the land, which is our only chance for planning. Don't go the sheep route either, as they don't really need buildings to be farmed. Best go with cows or pigs.

Also, you can build a barn without planning if it is to be used for agricultural purposes. Depending on what livestock you want to farm, there are different barn sizes. Horses, ironically, are given one of the smaller sizes (akin to greyhounds I think)... 100 square metres. I think cows are allowed 200 sq m. So this might be one way to go to try and get planning, especially if you might want a barn conversion as a house (not exempt from planning!). Don't count on it as a guarantee though, and I personally won't be doing it, as it'll simply mean spending €40,000 on a barn that I can't really use unless I also get a house there. My barn will go up as soon as I get planning (if ever I do get it).

lomb

Doper Than U wrote:

Lomb, you are right, those are the "supposed" stipulations. The facts are that I have a number of horses on the land (have had for the last four years). Wicklow CoCo hate horses. They detest people who use the horse excuse for wanting to build a house, so you will seriously damage your chances by playing the "horse" card. Trust me.. I have been refused on these very grounds. The planners actually said that if I wanted to build a barn for my horses (not an outrageous thing to build on a farm one would think), I would have to sign a waiver saying I would never apply for a house, and if I did apply, such an application would be immediately refused. For God's sake, if you're looking for planning in Wicklow, don't mention horses!!

As it happens, we want to have other livestock on the land, which is our only chance for planning. Don't go the sheep route either, as they don't really need buildings to be farmed. Best go with cows or pigs.

Also, you can build a barn without planning if it is to be used for agricultural purposes. Depending on what livestock you want to farm, there are different barn sizes. Horses, ironically, are given one of the smaller sizes (akin to greyhounds I think)... 100 square metres. I think cows are allowed 200 sq m. So this might be one way to go to try and get planning, especially if you might want a barn conversion as a house (not exempt from planning!). Don't count on it as a guarantee though, and I personally won't be doing it, as it'll simply mean spending €40,000 on a barn that I can't really use unless I also get a house there. My barn will go up as soon as I get planning (if ever I do get it).

if they are that strict then maybe consider selling the land and buying a existing house on land, could always hold on though maybe they will relax the conditions? its madness in my opinion, its ur land u should b able to do what u want with it. we are obviously living in a socialist country and that has its price...