Planning issues - post them here MOD WARNING post #1

muffler · 10-02-2008 1:04pm

ballivor cobber wrote: »

Do you mean that they will be safe from demolition threats AND they can automatically get retention?

If the house has been there for more than 7 years and the owners have not been contacted by the local authority the house cant be demolished. There is a statutory bar on the council which prevents them from taking any legal action in relation to the unauthorised development. However retention permission is certainly not automatic.

There is always the possibility that an application for retention could be refused and if this happens its a legal nightmare if the house was being sold as on one hand the council cant instigate any legal proceedings and on the other hand it still does not have permission. How the solicitors would handle this I dont know and I doubt if any of the lending institutions would advance money for the purchase of this type of development.

Having said all that and without knowing the details of the house I would think it is unlikely that the council would refuse permission in this instance.

sirspamalot · 12-02-2008 9:37pm

I am not sure if this is the right forum for this question but here goes.

Some years ago, my wife and her brother in-law built an extension on her house. She did not apply for planning permission.

She was encouraged by her brother-in law not to bother as (in his professional experience) an extension of this size was always granted planning permission.

1) My wife's brother in law is a cowboy
2) Retention/planning permission was NOT granted
3) My wife was not asked to demolish the extension but was told what was wrong with it.

My wife is now my ex-wife. I am being offered the "unplanned extension" house as part of the settlement.

Can anyone tell me what options exist with regard to the "unplanned/unapproved extension"?

And please, take it easy on the cowboy jokes, I deeply regret getting involved with any part of the ex's family.

S.

12-02-2008 10:06pm

One of our neighbours has recently been issued with a demolition order, the circumstances are different (Restoration of an abandoned dwelling without permission & running a transport business (HGV's noise etc) in a residential area*) but it's the ultimate sanction!

*adding insult to injury, they may have got away with just the house!

muffler · 12-02-2008 11:09pm

sirspamalot wrote: »

I am not sure if this is the right forum for this question but here goes.

Some years ago, my wife and her brother in-law built an extension on her house. She did not apply for planning permission.

She was encouraged by her brother-in law not to bother as (in his professional experience) an extension of this size was always granted planning permission.

1) My wife's brother in law is a cowboy
2) Retention/planning permission was NOT granted
3) My wife was not asked to demolish the extension but was told what was wrong with it.

My wife is now my ex-wife. I am being offered the "unplanned extension" house as part of the settlement.

Can anyone tell me what options exist with regard to the "unplanned/unapproved extension"?

And please, take it easy on the cowboy jokes, I deeply regret getting involved with any part of the ex's family.

S.

First of all so as we know where we stand. we wont be discussing any legal matters here.

There is provision in Planning & Development Acts that prevents the Local Authority from taking any form of legal action in relation to the extension providing it has been there for more than 7 years and also providing that they did not detect it during that 7 year period.

After that has been established its fairly clear cut - you then either have to apply for retention permission or get a declaration of exemption. If ownership is being changed then this will become a legal matter and as such you will need legal opinion on it. That opinion will need to come from a solicitor.

There is either another thread on this point of retention in the last few days or maybe its in this thread if you scroll back.

Edit; Read the couple of posts above. If I was fully awake I would have read them too before posting the same thing again

napoles · 13-02-2008 2:03pm

Hi all
We are going to convert an old barn on my family farm where I have always lived. We are not going to change the outside structure apart from adding some velux windows on the back side of the roof. We will also be putting down some sort of septic tank. Barn is in the yard facing the dwelling house and we have a long driveway up with our fields all around, so no other houses in proximity.
What's the story with planning in this instance?

sydthebeat · 13-02-2008 2:41pm

napoles wrote: »

Hi all
We are going to convert an old barn on my family farm where I have always lived. We are not going to change the outside structure apart from adding some velux windows on the back side of the roof. We will also be putting down some sort of septic tank. Barn is in the yard facing the dwelling house and we have a long driveway up with our fields all around, so no other houses in proximity.
What's the story with planning in this instance?

Planning is required as you are changing the use from agriculture to residential.
Planning is also required for the septic tank anyway.
You will have to show a site area large enough to comply with the county development plan requirements.

napoles · 13-02-2008 2:50pm

Do you mean a site area for the septic tank?
Looks like an engineer will have to be engaged so then..?
Something that started out as a nice idea is now getting much more complicated.. I guess we have to do it right though...
Planning will push the timeline out a long way too won't it?

sydthebeat · 13-02-2008 3:11pm

napoles wrote: »

Do you mean a site area for the septic tank?
Looks like an engineer will have to be engaged so then..?
Something that started out as a nice idea is now getting much more complicated.. I guess we have to do it right though...
Planning will push the timeline out a long way too won't it?

no offense to engineers, but i would engage an architect.... you can do tremendous things with converted barns... see http://www.locationworks.com/library/pics/18/16842/index.html for examples.

the timeline from now may be 12 months before starting work....

muffler · 13-02-2008 3:11pm

napoles wrote: »

Do you mean a site area for the septic tank?
Looks like an engineer will have to be engaged so then..?
Something that started out as a nice idea is now getting much more complicated.. I guess we have to do it right though...
Planning will push the timeline out a long way too won't it?

From a planning perspective changing the use of a barn from agricultural to domestic is no different really to looking for permission to build a new house.

napoles · 13-02-2008 3:13pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

no offense to engineers, but i would engage an architect.... you can do tremendous things with converted barns... see http://www.locationworks.com/library/pics/18/16842/index.html for examples.

the timeline from now may be 12 months before starting work....

12 months... Oh dear God.. I had thought I could be into it in 6 months..

muffler · 13-02-2008 3:15pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

the timeline from now may be 12 months before starting work....

Thats a bit pessimistic - could happen but highly unlikely. I know of a lot of projects that are up and running 4 - 5 months after first meeting with architect.

In all fairness an average time would be about 6 months.

napoles · 13-02-2008 3:19pm

I hope so.. It should hopefully end up being really nice, but I am so green in relation to all of this - I didn't even know you needed PP for a septic tank. Starting to feel slightly overwhelmed with all this. And I thought I was going for the easy option!! Sister is trying to get planning for a site on the farm and it's proving tricky.

Mellor · 13-02-2008 3:37pm

http://www.channel4.com/4homes/ontv/grand-designs/houses/R/ross_gallery_image12.html

There was a barn featured on grand designs a while back, they ran into some problems. Might be worth checking out

napoles · 13-02-2008 3:47pm

Thanks. Think I saw that one online alright. It's nice to see what other people have done. Didn't realise it would be such a planning minefield though. Wonder if there's any way of finding out whether it was originally a dwelling house? It's almost the exact dimensions of the farmhouse...

smashey · 13-02-2008 3:58pm

I think you should get a pre planning meeting with your local planner. There might be issues. There might not.

napoles · 13-02-2008 4:16pm

Yep, they seem to be the way to go. Sister's architect told her they didn't need a pre-planning meeting and the first application has been turned down with the recommendation that they really should have had a meeting before applying.

sirspamalot · 14-02-2008 11:17am

muffler wrote: »

First of all so as we know where we stand. we wont be discussing any legal matters here.

There is provision in Planning & Development Acts that prevents the Local Authority from taking any form of legal action in relation to the extension providing it has been there for more than 7 years and also providing that they did not detect it during that 7 year period.

After that has been established its fairly clear cut - you then either have to apply for retention permission or get a declaration of exemption. If ownership is being changed then this will become a legal matter and as such you will need legal opinion on it. That opinion will need to come from a solicitor.

There is either another thread on this point of retention in the last few days or maybe its in this thread if you scroll back.

Edit; Read the couple of posts above. If I was fully awake I would have read them too before posting the same thing again

Hello Muffler, thanks for your reply.

I have read and re-read the previous posts and am still unsure about my situation.

Given that my ex-wife applied for retention and was refused, does it mean that;

1. If no one complains, automatic retention will be granted after 7 years elapses after the date she was refused retention.

2. I need to get an "exemption" in order to sell the house (with the extension intact)?

Thanks for your patience.

S.

muffler · 14-02-2008 11:26am

sirspamalot wrote: »

Hello Muffler, thanks for your reply.

I have read and re-read the previous posts and am still unsure about my situation.

Given that my ex-wife applied for retention and was refused, does it mean that;

1. If no one complains, automatic retention will be granted after 7 years elapses after the date she was refused retention.

2. I need to get an "exemption" in order to sell the house (with the extension intact)?

Thanks for your patience.

S.

1. Nothing to do with anyone complaining at all - in fact it doesnt even enter the equation. Read the posts again. Retention permission is not automatic. You apply in the normal way and if you get it you're flying but if it is refused then as I said before you are in a legal situation whereby the planning authority cant take you to court but the development still does not have a valid planning permission. This appears to be your situation so you need to talk to a solicitor about this.

2. What I meant regarding "exemption" would be if the development was exempt from planning but it appears it isnt.

bauderline · 14-02-2008 11:42am

A real shame, its a nice looking house !

Irish Times 7th Jan.

Council to seek court order to demolish house
Paul Cullen

Meath County Council is expected to seek a court order shortly for the demolition of a large two-storey house near Navan which was built without planning permission.

The council is expected to reactivate earlier legal proceedings for the demolition of the house near Bohermeen. This follows the refusal of An Bord Pleanála to grant retention permission for the unauthorised development.

The house was built by the owner, Michael Murray, a local plumber who owns a plant hire business. At 588sq metres in size, it was about twice as large as the house proposed in the original planning application. Mr Murray declined to comment on the case.

Last November, An Bord Pleanála refused retention permission for the house, which is in a cul-de-sac at Faughanhill. It ruled that the house was out of character for the area and represented an "unduly prominent and incongruous" feature on the landscape. It would also give rise to excessive development in a rural area lacking services and would set an undesirable precedent for further development, the board found.

The board rejected arguments made on behalf of Mr Murray by planning consultant Seán Lucy, who said his client was born and reared in the family home less than half a mile from the house under dispute. He said Mr Murray had applied for planning permission for a house for himself and his family on three occasions on three different sites, but was refused.

Mr Lucy said Mr Murray had built the house "in desperation" because he needed a home for his wife and three children. His client recognised that he was "remiss", but pleaded that this should not prejudice his case.

The An Bord Pleanála inspector found that Mr Murray met the criteria for local needs under the guidelines for sustainable rural housing and ruled there were no traffic issues. However, he claimed permission would place excessive pressure on waste water treatment in an unserviced rural area and so would be prejudicial to public health.

An Taisce (Meath branch) had appealed the application for retention permission, saying it could set a dangerous precedent. Not only had the original planning refusal been ignored, but the house built was considerably larger than the original application, it said. The area has seen a number of planning applications, most of which have been refused.

A council spokesman declined to comment on the case as it was the subject of legal proceedings which were started after the council refused Mr Murray's initial planning application on the site in May 2006.

© 2008 The Irish Times

Mellor · 14-02-2008 12:43pm

Are you serious, a shame???? The above is a perfect example of whats wrong with this country. I'd have my reservation about how "nice it is", its huge.

He applies for a c.300m house, was refused,
so goes and builds a house approaching 600 sq.m. He deserves everything he gets. 300sq.m is a big house, very comfortable for any sized family. He has 3 children. There was no need to double it.

If he felt he should of been awarded the original planning, he could of appealed. But too go ahead and double its size and build it anyway is idiotic. Tear it down. Its people like this that make it harder for people with legitimate reasons and well designed houses.

sydthebeat · 14-02-2008 1:09pm

i have absolutely no sympathy for him.

Id love to know how he built 6500 sq ft of a dwelling without anyone having to certify stages in compliance with planning..... id say his mattress was fairly thick

and if someone did certify, i hope they suffer the consequences too....

however, i wont fully believe it until its levelled.

bauderline · 14-02-2008 1:27pm

I don't condone for one second the fragrant flouting of the planning laws, I posted the above as an extreme example of what not to do and the possible pitfalls of going down the retention route.

I don't feel any personal empathy for him, all I was say was that I liked the house as I saw an actual photo of it in the paper. A fine two storey house in my opinion that looks a lot better than the plague of hideous dormers that have been inflicted on the Meath landscape due to hopless planning guidelines...

That's my opinion and I am entitled to it.

b.

Mellor · 14-02-2008 1:52pm

Oh of course, I you sounded like was a shame he had to do it (after flouting laws), rather than it was a shame to lose a (rare) nice house.
I checked online and hey didn't have a picture, the problem is that photographs ogten leave out scale

muffler · 14-02-2008 2:27pm

Cant say I have any sympathy at all for the guy. Like the old adage if you live by the sword you perish by the sword.

I would however be disappointed if it was a case he was singled out so to speak. It should be equal treatment right across the board.

Builderfromhell · 19-02-2008 2:51pm

PLANNING CONDITIONS
I have just completed a very large house extension to a house in Co. Clare. The water treatment unit and percolation area have just gone in and been certified by manufacturer and Site Assesor Engineer as per conditions of planning.
The planning conditions called for Water treatment unit and percolation area to be certified as correctly installed before work commences on site.
we rang planning, before work commenced, explaining that as ground levels would be changing due to excavation and spreading soil we would prefer to install WTU and get certification later.
I had written to planning a year ago seeking agreement with them for type of unit to be used but never got areply. After calling for past few weeks I finally got aletter from them saying WTU proposed was acceptable. The letter also stated in bold type that any work carried out prior to compliance with Conditions of planning would be considered unauthorised development and be dealt with accordingly ( I don't have exact wording.
My query is; Is this just a standard clause to a standard letter? The WTU and percolation area are installed and certified, so are they likely to take proceedings?
have others had similar experience, that is to say build house first and fit WTU and perco area later?
Hope someone can help. Don't want to have to apply for retention.

conor2949 · 19-02-2008 3:02pm

Hi all,

This is my first time posting about my planning application.

I live on the border of South Tipperary and North West Waterford. I live on an elevated site overlooking the Galtee mountains. The road I live on is a link road. i.e. the main road goes around the base of the mountain whereas my link road goes up, over and down the other side of the mountain to re-join with the main road.

The road is about 5 miles long and there are about 25 houses along the road.

I’ve lived here all my life (25 years) and in that time I’ve seen about 12 new houses being built.
The original 13 houses on the road are all 1970’s and 1980’s traditional bungalows.

The 12 new houses vary in size and proportion from red brick bungalows to 1.5 storeys to dormers to 2 storey abominations.

The new developments are interspersed amongst the existing developments.

I live with my parents and they have gifted me a site on their small plot of land. The site is 1 acre.

Let me outline briefly the surroundings:
As you approach my site, heading up the hill, you pass a split level bungalow on your right. Then immediately passed that is my site on the right. The next two sites just above mine are two traditional bungalows.

My proposed house: A 1.5 storey dwelling, hipped and twin gabled, with a ridge height of 8.9metres.
There will be hardwood sash windows, hardwood door, hardwood veranda, natural slates, stone piers and wall at entrance, stone on one of the protruding gables.

Council have argued that because my house is in between existing bungalows that no other house form would be considered other than a bungalow.

I have countered this with:
1) proposed to dig into the site by 2m
2) redesigning the roof to loose 1m off the overall height
3) cited all the other 12 new developments as to how they are out of synch with the existing developments

I’m trying to show them how I want to work with them to reach a compromise but I’m not willing to sacrifice my top storey.

The planner advised me recently to use the Cork rural housing design guide as an outline of how they (Waterford coco) want all houses to look or design principles to follow.
See www.corkcoco.ie/co/pdf/343708010.pdf

Going by their rationale, they’d rather I built a one room cottage with thatch roof, half door and walked like quasi moto!

When we had set about designing the the house over a year ago, the head planner had visited the site and outlined that there would be no issue with obtaining a dormer style house on the site.

Has anybody had any experience of appealing to An Bord Pleanala? Based on what I’ve described above what do people think would be the likelihood of a successful appeal if the council refused my planning application?

Apologies if I rambled.

Thanks!

smashey · 19-02-2008 3:05pm

conor2949 wrote: »

Council have argued that because my house is in between existing bungalows that no other house form would be considered other than a bungalow.

Nothing strange there.

Villain · 19-02-2008 3:21pm

Conor 2949, I have known people in the very same situation as you in Carlow and I'm afraid that the best any of them have got away with is a dormer with a ridge height of 6.7 or 6.5. I have known one applicant that put a basement in with front access i.e. the basment can be accessed externally.

Having a house with anything of 7.5m of a ridge between bunaglow's will just look out of place.

sydthebeat · 19-02-2008 4:16pm

Its very possible to get a decent storey and a half dwelling built with a ridge of less than 6.5 m... but it takes a decent architect worth his salt to do it. You need a narrow plan format, traditional circulation (room to room, rather than long corridors)......

8.9 m ridge height for a storey and a half dwelling is ridiculous, to be blunt. It sounds like it wasnt designed by an architect.

the option of digging out 2.0 m is totally out, both from a planning and practicality point of view.

Villain · 19-02-2008 4:28pm

Yep my 2,500 sq ft dormer is working with a 6.7m ridge height, Conor you are welcome to have a look at my plans which are posted up in other threads, or pm and I will email you a copy.

Planning issues - post them here MOD WARNING post #1

Comments