planning permission - Dreaded 10 year clause

daveg · 04-07-2005 3:36pm #1

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/ · 04-07-2005 3:38pm

You could fake your own death?

yop · 04-07-2005 4:10pm

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

netwhizkid · 04-07-2005 6:59pm

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 · 04-07-2005 7:02pm

we cannot sell the house

What about letting it out?

daveg · 04-07-2005 8:27pm

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 · 04-07-2005 9:06pm

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 · 04-07-2005 9:32pm

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 · 04-07-2005 9:47pm

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 · 05-07-2005 10:12am

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 · 05-07-2005 10:22am

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 · 05-07-2005 10:24am

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 · 05-07-2005 10:34am

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 · 05-07-2005 10:47am

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 · 05-07-2005 10:54am

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 · 05-07-2005 11:02am

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

threebeards · 05-07-2005 11:13am

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 · 05-07-2005 11:16am

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 · 05-07-2005 11:18am

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 · 05-07-2005 11:24am

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 · 05-07-2005 11:32am

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 · 05-07-2005 11:43am

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 · 05-07-2005 11:48am

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 · 05-07-2005 11:51am

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 · 05-07-2005 11:56am

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 · 05-07-2005 12:03pm

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 · 05-07-2005 12:17pm

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 · 05-07-2005 12:19pm

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 · 05-07-2005 12:20pm

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 · 05-07-2005 12:23pm

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 · 05-07-2005 12:29pm

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.

planning permission - Dreaded 10 year clause

Comments