planning permission - Dreaded 10 year clause

lomb

tis a gamble, i personally wouldnt do it unless the investment was small, or there was planning for something there in the first place.

rooferPete

Hi,

On the visual amenity you can get your plans rendered to show the trees and add a roof that is covered with soil and you can have a lawn on the roof.

That would suggest the view from any distance would be of a field behind the trees, at least you are giving the planners an reason to work with you.

Also you do have what appears to be a valid argument regarding the care of your livestock, one thing all officials hate is the thought they may be held liable for something like the loss of or injury to animals, the animals don't know the rules.

.

Doper Than U

I would definitely go for a lawn roof if I thought it would go in my favour! I'd love to build an underground house which would be almost completely hidden, but there's no way in hell they'd go for it.

Another major issue for us is that lots of tourists want to use the land for picnics. Now, we don't have a problem with this (there is a youth hostel next door.. which makes planning even more difficult :rolleyes: ), but recently tourists came in and left the gate open and the horses got out onto the road. Luckily the local farmer put them back in. It could have been disastrous had a car come along. Since then we've had to padlock the gates (which means most tourists now can't use it, although some will just climb over). Now.. it also raises the issue of insurance. I'm liable if one of them trespasses (which they all do, after all, I am not there to give permission) or if one of them is hurt by my horses. So really, I should just put up signs saying "private property" or "no trespassing" and warn the youth hostel not to let any of their clients on the land... but really, we have a good relationship with them, and they have said they would support our application. I can't win.

lomb

Doper Than U wrote:

So really, I should just put up signs saying "private property" or "no trespassing" and warn the youth hostel not to let any of their clients on the land... but really, we have a good relationship with them, and they have said they would support our application. I can't win.

u can get insurance for that, dont take a gamble yourself, any claim could wipe u out, insurers have deeper pockets than u or i. afaik even if there are signs u are still liable?

rooferPete

Hi,

lomb is correct, Property owners liability insurance is not very expensive and afaik even cheaper fo agricultural land.

You appear to be in a no win position at the moment, by locking the gate a visitor could be injured climbing over, if you don't secure the gate and an animal strays on to the road you could lose both the animal and pay any damages to the motorist / public.

This was an issue between farmers and the Govt. not too long ago regarding hill walkers and tourists I can't remember the legal outcome.

Signs tend to disappear very fast in the event of an accident / incident or are too big for the councils liking and too small to be effective in the eyes of the courts.

The problem with owning the land is it can be viewed as a valuable asset so the Solicitors would not hesitate in taking legal action against you insured or not, because any awards can be liened against the property.

A quick call to your insurance broker or solicitor could be worth a lot of money to you, I for one am certainly not qualified to advise you not to be insured.

.

Doper Than U

No, no.. sorry, I seem to have given the wrong impression. The land is insured. It's just that a liability lawsuit from a trespasser wouldn't be avoided simply because we have insurance. I guess what I'm saying is that I resent the fact that the Council want people to essentially buy land for their tourists.

dras

Hi Dave G,

getting back to the original problem; I also have the enurement clause in my FPP that I got in May 2005. Also in Co Galway. I think that the actual FPP document states that the 10 year clause applies to the "first occupier" and in my mind this does not prevent anyone building the house and selling it on prior to occupation. In other words Dave, if you sold the house directly after building it then it should be ok. This would mean that the new occupiers would need to stay for 10 years. There are also allowances for returning immigrants, people who work in agriculture, etc in the FPP that may give you more leeway in who to sell the house to.

Good luck.

paulocon

Exactly what happened in a house down the road from me.

Planning had a 5 year occupancy rule. It was build but the guy building it never moved in and subsequently sold it.. I am not sure what the situation is with the occupancy clause for the new occupiers - I must find out.

elqu

Hmm, would seriously doubt the enforceability of a ten yr clause like that. How would they track you for one thing? It does appear on your title tho' so it will be an issue when you sell. You'd have to put a clause in your contract dealing with it. Be tricky maybe but bet you'd find a buyer As for your new place, put in the pp in a different name. My own parents recently built in galway too and got a ten yr clause, however, it wasn't an issue for them. And isn't there a 7yr limit on enforcing planning conditions/permission? And if they did somehow find out you'd sold what on earth could they sue you for? It's not a crime. They haven't suffered any damage. The whole thing is a nonsense...

whitelightrider

Hey Dave,

I think we're going to be in the same boat as you. We are building (hopefully if planning goes through) in Galway and one of the clauses on the site is a 10 year one. It's a pain but I dont think there's much of an option.