Planning Requirement to rebuild after a fire

roncor · 29-05-2014 12:22am #1

A query that hopefully some might be able to offer an opinion or advise on. Our house burned down during late September and approx half is completely burned out with roof gone and some walls fractured and holed and others in various stages of collapse remainder of house is very badly smoke etc damaged. After initial issues with insurer they finally agreed to provide indemnity but then proceded to argue re a scope of works. At our own cost we employed an architect to appraise the building and he advised that parts would require demolition due to their unsoundness. He also advised that as a result planning may be required (Co Kildare)

This was notified to insurer who inspected with their own engineer who agreed that some walls needed demolition and rebuilding however he queried the foundation requirements as outlined by our architect and requested inspection pits be dug. He also doubted that planning would be required and that one might be able to try a section 5 for exemption. Pits were dug showing very old and unusable foundations and this was notified to insurer.

In order to ensure all aspects were covered properly I discussed with a planning consultant and he felt it may not be a runner for exemption and advised that the best route to obtain definitive answer was to discuss with Co Council.

We duly contacted Kildare CC who I must say have been very helpful and requested their opinion on whether planning is required to rebuild the house as it was. They advised that planning is required and that there are no exemptions that allow re instatement .

Our Loss Assessors to my surprise and the Insurance Companies Loss Adjuster seem to have their own opinion that planning isn't needed and think we should just agree a figure and proceed to build and adopt the option of build away and maybe the council wont notice and if they do we can deal with them then.

I have to say I dont like that idea as it has many unknowns and implications and I feel that they are just attempting to avoid some additional costs .

Can anyone offer an opinion or advise please as ive noticed some engineers and architects stating on sites that planning is required.

Many Thanks in advance

4Sticks · 29-05-2014 12:36am

Your insurers engineer is correct. Instruct your architect to prepare a Section 5 Application. 5 weeks later there will be no more room for "opinions"

DOCARCH · 29-05-2014 7:18am

4Sticks wrote: »

Your insurers engineer is correct.

+1. Planning permission is required.

sydthebeat · 29-05-2014 7:39am

It is my understanding that planning permission IS required.

There is no facility for partial demolition and rebuild to be exempt from PP

4Sticks · 29-05-2014 9:13am

Section 4 (1) (h) PDA 2000.

roncor · 29-05-2014 9:19am

Thank you all for the replies, we are preparing for a section 5 referral and hopefully it will put things to bed. My frustration has been the fact that so many loss adjusters or assessors seem to work in the land of myth, perfectly capable in most aspects of their job but so very liaise faire in others.

The lady who owns the house is in her seventies and my worry was that should she wish to or have to sell in a few years she would be left in an awful mess by not ensuring compliance when rebuilding.

Thanks again for the help and opinion.

4Sticks · 29-05-2014 9:27am

roncor wrote: »

The lady who owns the house is in her seventies and my worry was that should she wish to or have to sell in a few years she would be left in an awful mess by not ensuring compliance when rebuilding.

roncor wrote: »

Our house burned down

roncor · 29-05-2014 9:30am

The Lady in question being my mother so the original family home hence the our house reference.

sydthebeat · 29-05-2014 9:33am

4Sticks wrote: »

Section 4 (1) (h) PDA 2000.

any queries we've ever had with planning offices, permission has always been required.

DOCARCH · 29-05-2014 10:21am

sydthebeat wrote: »

any queries we've ever had with planning offices, permission has always been required.

Ditto.

I am not sure if Section 5 is necessary...it will only tell you that planning permission is required.

sydthebeat · 29-05-2014 10:24am

DOCARCH wrote: »

Ditto.

I am not sure if Section 5 is necessary...it will only tell you that planning permission is required.

i can understand the argument behind 4 (1) h.... but id be surprised if it worked.

4Sticks · 29-05-2014 11:06am

I would be of the view that 4 (1)(h) ought to prevail.
However as many expert opinions differ (most importantly the difference of opinion between the LA and the insurance company) then a Section 5 Declaration would be definitive.
A relatively low cost and speedy option for the OP to demonstrate to the insurance company beyond doubt or opinion that planning either is / is not required.

Drift · 29-05-2014 5:31pm

I'd say it could be argued in court that 4(1)h would appy but my experience has been that Local Authorities usually default to a "Permission Required" setting if there's even the slightest hint of grey.

A Section 5 is ideal to have paperwork to prove your case with the Insurers. A section 5 is almost a win-win situation for the OP.

roncor · 05-06-2014 9:24pm

Thanks to all for the help and advise, section 5 gone in so should know the final decision in about four weeks. Our own team are fairly sure that full planning will be required so I suppose the next headache will be costing the requirements that come with current day planning requirements when we have to reinstate a 1905 house with a 1960 section. I can only guess that we wont be getting much in the way of co operation from Insurers agents and adjusters .

john downey · 10-07-2014 3:29pm

Hi Roncor
I noticed your post online and would be very inquisitive in relation to the response from Kildare CC. I called them but they don't give out the decision of Part V referrals, could you let me know directly how you got on. I assume they referred it on further to ABP.
Many thanks and sorry about your misfortunate loss.
Regards

JOHN

kkelliher · 11-07-2014 7:39pm

roncor wrote: »

Thanks to all for the help and advise, section 5 gone in so should know the final decision in about four weeks. Our own team are fairly sure that full planning will be required so I suppose the next headache will be costing the requirements that come with current day planning requirements when we have to reinstate a 1905 house with a 1960 section. I can only guess that we wont be getting much in the way of co operation from Insurers agents and adjusters .

they have to cover the costs of rebuilding at todays costs and regulations so stick to your guns

john downey · 14-07-2014 2:27pm

Just to note also that if one has apply for planning permission (which I would think may be the case given that Section 4.1.H is a little ambiguous in this regard, and, if the planning authority accordingly refuse the said permission, there is compensation available under Section 193 of the PDA.

roncor · 23-07-2014 9:17pm

john downey wrote: »

Hi Roncor
I noticed your post online and would be very inquisitive in relation to the response from Kildare CC. I called them but they don't give out the decision of Part V referrals, could you let me know directly how you got on. I assume they referred it on further to ABP.
Many thanks and sorry about your misfortunate loss.
Regards

JOHN

Hi John,

We are still waiting on the County Council to formally reply but I will post the outcome when we recieve same.

Regards,

Ron.

roncor · 28-08-2014 11:53pm

By way of update, we did after quite a time have a site and building visit and inspection from a very decent planner/engineer from KCC who appraised the site , damage etc, we have just received a request for quite a bit of extra information. Considering the amount of areas that need to be addressed in the request I am glad we have asked the question as had we proceded as advised by Insurance experts !!!!!! we would surely have ended up with an expensive mess to sort out.

roncor · 15-09-2014 8:05pm

By way of update to all, County Council have recently provided an answer to our Section 5 referral and have responded stating that the works to replace the building even as it was are not exempt development and do require planning permission. They have in fairness to them given quite a detailed reason as to why it is not deemed exempt and have outlined in detail why section 4(1)(h) and a number of other sections dont apply. While it might in some ways be considered dissapointing I suppose its far better to at least know that we now know how to proceed and can relax in the knowledge that there wont be compliance issues in waiting had we gone with the no planning required advise.Of course the obstacle to deal with now is still the loss adjuster and his engineer who wont like such an outcome but I suppose onward and upward as they have to opperate within the law or at least one hopes that is the case.

Ron

patrafter7 · 01-12-2020 10:14pm

Hi

Do you mind telling me the planning reference number?
You can pm if you prefer.

Thanks

Planning Requirement to rebuild after a fire

Comments