Planning issues - post them here MOD WARNING post #1

mal_1

cowboy77 wrote: »

Hi guys

I need to get retention for a bedroom and toilet extension, to the side of my house. The house layout is that of a typical housing development & semi detached. The problem is that the builder built the extension over the existing foul and rain manholes. Although there is access to both, (he built timber floor for access) will this be a problem? i.e refusal? Do i need to replace these manholes outside the extension. Both service our house and neighbour and run to a public sewer line.

Any suggestions? thanks!

The suggestion would be to get a local professional that can do your planning and advise on the drainage onto the site and inspect what has been constructed.

Nothing wrong with building over drainage, however there should probably have been an rodding eye or manholes to access these, depending on layout. by your description you seem now to have an internal manhole, which isn't appropriate.

Fozzie Bear

Did you ever get the feeling a higher power is trying to tell you something??

Bit of a frustrated rant here.... Myself and my wife are currently looking to buy our first home. We have looked at 4 likely candidates so far and all 4 are not planning compliant in one way or another and to varying degrees of seriousness! From adding an extra 1500sqft extention (in two phases) without any PP to over looking windows and garages converted into accommodation. One of these into a 3 bed bungalow for renting, without PP!

Some people don't seem to give a toss and there is feck all PP enforcement. The 1500sqft extention is known to the Planning office for years and shag all done about it. Its pretty maddening from our point of view as its time wasting having to go research this stuff.

Anyways my question relates to the latest DIY genuis and his attic conversion we have come across. He converted his attic into 2 bedrooms, a toilet, study, hallway and storage. There are four velux windows to the front and four to the rear and there is nothing but open fields facing both. Fine big attic space but his retention PP was turned down as the roof is not high enough. Now we walked around it and did not have to duck down or anything and we are both 6+ foot tall. But PP is not going to happen so my question is,

What needs to happen to make it compliant? If we buy do we need to remove the front facing velux windows, partition walls and stair case to make it compliant?? i.e. It would then be just an open storage space with a Stira type stairs access. Or is there another way? Can the stairs be kept?

Thanks & sorry for the rant.

sydthebeat

Fozzie Bear wrote: »

..........

Anyways my question relates to the latest DIY genuis and his attic conversion we have come across. He converted his attic into 2 bedrooms, a toilet, study, hallway and storage. There are four velux windows to the front and four to the rear and there is nothing but open fields facing both. Fine big attic space but his retention PP was turned down as the roof is not high enough. Now we walked around it and did not have to duck down or anything and we are both 6+ foot tall. But PP is not going to happen so my question is,

What needs to happen to make it compliant? If we buy do we need to remove the front facing velux windows, partition walls and stair case to make it compliant?? i.e. It would then be just an open storage space with a Stira type stairs access. Or is there another way? Can the stairs be kept?

Thanks & sorry for the rant.

If the conversion of the attic was refused permission to retain then he shouldnt be selling it as a converted attic.

what you have described as remedial works would, in my opinion, be sufficient for a planning office to deem the development redundant.

however im confused as to how you phrase

retention PP was turned down as the roof is not high enough

Now, ive know attics not to comply with building regulations because they were not high enough, but ive never heard of a reason for planning refusal that it wasnt high enough.

ive often seen planners give permission for something that wouldnt comply with regulations, and ive never seen them refuse permission for something that didnt.

are you sure there wasnt an application for exemption from building regulations made?

muffler

sydthebeat wrote: »

however im confused as to how you phrase
Now, ive know attics not to comply with building regulations because they were not high enough, but ive never heard of a reason for planning refusal that it wasnt high enough.

ive often seen planners give permission for something that wouldnt comply with regulations, and ive never seen them refuse permission for something that didnt.

are you sure there wasnt an application for exemption from building regulations made?

Agreed.

I have never come across "breach of or non compliance with building regs" being used a reason for a planning refusal. On one occasion I did see mention of non compliant floor to ceiling height written in the planners report when I viewed the file after the refusal had issued but the official refusal contained no reference to it though. Obviously the senior planner had it omitted from the reasons for refusal..

Fozzie Bear

Maybe I'm reading or worded it wrong lads or regs may have changed since 1992? The application was made in 1992 by the way! Another example of somebody not giving a toss for PP decisions and leaving it as is for 20 years.

I've typed it out verbatim anyways what is on the Planning website. It was definitely a retention application refused for roof height being too low I think?

Decision;

"Refusal of retention application of attic conversion in the town land of ...."
Reasons;

"The ceiling height is substandard having regard to the Building regulations 1991 and public health requirments in relation to attic developements for human habitiation. The proposal would therefore conflict with the health and safety of occupants"

head13

do I need planning for making my shed/garage/out building bigger?
Its at the back side of my house, but you can only see a small bit of the front wall from the front of my house, it's approx. 11ftX11ft.
If it causes too much hassle could I just put a door entry to the front, without getting planning?


what happenes if I just go away, knock or extend my shed/garage/out building and just build a bigger one with a front access door without planning?

cheers head!

loremolis

muffler wrote: »

Agreed.

I have never come across "breach of or non compliance with building regs" being used a reason for a planning refusal. On one occasion I did see mention of non compliant floor to ceiling height written in the planners report when I viewed the file after the refusal had issued but the official refusal contained no reference to it though. Obviously the senior planner had it omitted from the reasons for refusal..

Slightly off the OP query but I've seen a PP refused and one of the reasons given was that the application was INVALID.

muffler

loremolis wrote: »

Slightly off the OP query but I've seen a PP refused and one of the reasons given was that the application was INVALID.

:eek: Nothing really surprises me when it comes to planning.

peefs

Hi, hope I'm in the correct thread for this query.
We are looking at possibly buying a site with full planning permission. However the permission runs out next summer. Would we be mad to buy the site - considering we don't even have building quotes lined up. What level does the house have to be built to to before the deadline? Many thanks.

Bullseye1

Just be careful that there is no restriction on the planning permission. Some local authorities put restrictions on the sale of a house/site for a period of ten years, which means that I you get planning you must register the title with the land registry and you can then only sell with the permission of the local authority and it must be to a local working normally in agriculture/forestry. Consult with your solicitor on this before making any offer.

BTw regarding your time frame, it is alittle tight but if you get the house substantially completed you can apply for a time extension to complete works. Have a chat with a local consultant or your planning authority.

Bullseye1

If it was up for 20 years why did they bother applying for retention in the first place. Prior to 2000 all they would have to do is prepare an affadavit confirming that the local authority have not taken action and that the attic was in place for 5 years (now increased to 7) and attach to the certificate of compliance for the main house.

Fozzie Bear wrote: »

Maybe I'm reading or worded it wrong lads or regs may have changed since 1992? The application was made in 1992 by the way! Another example of somebody not giving a toss for PP decisions and leaving it as is for 20 years.

I've typed it out verbatim anyways what is on the Planning website. It was definitely a retention application refused for roof height being too low I think?

Decision;

"Refusal of retention application of attic conversion in the town land of ...."
Reasons;

"The ceiling height is substandard having regard to the Building regulations 1991 and public health requirments in relation to attic developements for human habitiation. The proposal would therefore conflict with the health and safety of occupants"

rayjdav

Bullseye1 wrote: »

BTw regarding your time frame, it is alittle tight but if you get the house substantially completed you can apply for a time extension to complete works. Have a chat with a local consultant or your planning authority.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2010/en.act.2010.0030.PDF

Link to amendment of P&D Act whereby you can apply for extension of time without having works even commenced. Obviously bst to get the land owner to do this as then there is no onus on you to but something that may be refused.

peefs

Great thanks - will check out planning restrictions and thanks for the link.

Coga

We got our planning permission after a three year battle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So thrilled and would like to say a special thank you to ByranF. Your advice and recommendation re planning consultant was top notch!

RuthieP

Hi All,

I have a query on the section 47 condition that applies to some houses in Wicklow.
My partner and I are trying to buy a house in rural Wicklow. We have been approved the money from the banks but when my solicitor got the contracts, she saw that there is a section 47 condition attached to the house from when the owners got planning permission for it 20 years ago.

The condition states that anyone buying the house must live or work in Wicklow or work in agriculture near the house. There is no time frame attached to the condition that says it runs out after 10 years. My partner and I are both from Dublin.

Has anyone had experience with this before? Is it likely that Wicklow County Council will dissolve this condition if the current owners write a letter? It seems mad that we'd have to jump through hoops as they have been trying to sell the house for ages and with the current housing market I don't think anyone can afford to be fussy about who buys the house, we're not looking to build or anything.

Would really appreciate any advise or previous experiences from anyone on this.

Thanks

Sinead Mc1

Hello.
I'm just wondering does anyone know if there is an exception to the 7 year law when it comes to the county council taking action with someone who built without planning.
6/7 years ago our neighbour built an extension. He put a planning application in his window but didn't really discuss this with us.
Now we are hoping to sell our house and after a bit of research on the internet it seemed there is no way he would have got planning for it. It is over 40sq mts, on each floor (it is a 2 storey extension) and we also suspect he built on our boundary( he took down the boundary fence and carried on the wall of the extension down the garden). He also built a dormer style shed with an extremely large roof. My husband did ask him about this, at the time, and he agreed not to do a 2 storey, but went and did a dormer!!! At the time we did suspect it was all too big, and we have zero light but trusted that he did get the planning. NOW we have contacted the planning office and they have told us they received NO application at all from this person and they reckon the application, on the window, may have been a fake!!!
We know it is our fault for not acting sooner. And have been killing ourselves about it ever since. You just wouldn't think someone would fake an application!!
The wheels are now in motion as we have made the complaint and the council are inspecting it. We also think we may have a picture proving it was under construction 6 years ago. I'm just wondering if we are wrong, and it is 7 years ago, is the council prepared to do nothing over a completely illegal building/buildings? We have contacted our solicitor, who says we have a civil case, but we would love to not have to go down this road. We're sure it would be expensive and an extremely long process. However, if we have to we will as we obviously need to be able to sell our home.
Can any one advise?

sydthebeat

Sinead Mc1 wrote: »

Hello.
I'm just wondering does anyone know if there is an exception to the 7 year law when it comes to the county council taking action with someone who built without planning.
6/7 years ago our neighbour built an extension. He put a planning application in his window but didn't really discuss this with us.
Now we are hoping to sell our house and after a bit of research on the internet it seemed there is no way he would have got planning for it. It is over 40sq mts, on each floor (it is a 2 storey extension) and we also suspect he built on our boundary( he took down the boundary fence and carried on the wall of the extension down the garden). He also built a dormer style shed with an extremely large roof. My husband did ask him about this, at the time, and he agreed not to do a 2 storey, but went and did a dormer!!! At the time we did suspect it was all too big, and we have zero light but trusted that he did get the planning. NOW we have contacted the planning office and they have told us they received NO application at all from this person and they reckon the application, on the window, may have been a fake!!!
We know it is our fault for not acting sooner. And have been killing ourselves about it ever since. You just wouldn't think someone would fake an application!!
The wheels are now in motion as we have made the complaint and the council are inspecting it. We also think we may have a picture proving it was under construction 6 years ago. I'm just wondering if we are wrong, and it is 7 years ago, is the council prepared to do nothing over a completely illegal building/buildings? We have contacted our solicitor, who says we have a civil case, but we would love to not have to go down this road. We're sure it would be expensive and an extremely long process. However, if we have to we will as we obviously need to be able to sell our home.
Can any one advise?

an enforcement action automatically assumes the development took place within 7 years of the enforcement action, and its up to the "enforced" to prove otherwise.

If you have proof that the development took place less than 7 years ago then by all means present this to the enforcement section of your local authority.

edit: it may also be possible to refer to the ordnance survey office to see if they surveyed the area 7 years ago and see it the development shows up on any map

sydthebeat

RuthieP wrote: »

Hi All,

I have a query on the section 47 condition that applies to some houses in Wicklow.
My partner and I are trying to buy a house in rural Wicklow. We have been approved the money from the banks but when my solicitor got the contracts, she saw that there is a section 47 condition attached to the house from when the owners got planning permission for it 20 years ago.

The condition states that anyone buying the house must live or work in Wicklow or work in agriculture near the house. There is no time frame attached to the condition that says it runs out after 10 years. My partner and I are both from Dublin.

Has anyone had experience with this before? Is it likely that Wicklow County Council will dissolve this condition if the current owners write a letter? It seems mad that we'd have to jump through hoops as they have been trying to sell the house for ages and with the current housing market I don't think anyone can afford to be fussy about who buys the house, we're not looking to build or anything.

Would really appreciate any advise or previous experiences from anyone on this.

Thanks

theres something not quite correct here.

the section 47 you are referring to is section 47 of the planning act 2000, therefore it couldnt have been conditioned for 20 years ago.

If the owners are selling the dwelling, its up to them to get this condition revoked, otherwise they are severely restricting their target market.

Sinead Mc1

sydthebeat wrote: »

an enforcement action automatically assumes the development took place within 7 years of the enforcement action, and its up to the "enforced" to prove otherwise.

If you have proof that the development took place less than 7 years ago then by all means present this to the enforcement section of your local authority.

edit: it may also be possible to refer to the ordnance survey office to see if they surveyed the area 7 years ago and see it the development shows up on any map

Thanks.
I have a photo, taking 6 years ago, showing the date, which shows the extension but not the garage (but it does show garage foundations). The garage was built straight after the extension so WE know both were built within the 7 years. I'm worried, however, that my neighbour may claim the garage was built years later. Basically i'd like to know are the 2 buildings seen, by the council as one construction? In which case the photo proves 6 years ago it was near completion. Also i'm wondering what he can provide to prove otherwise. Is someones word enough? He is not short of builder friends and i'm sure he is not beyond faking receipts etc...

RuthieP

sydthebeat wrote: »

theres something not quite correct here.

the section 47 you are referring to is section 47 of the planning act 2000, therefore it couldnt have been conditioned for 20 years ago.

If the owners are selling the dwelling, its up to them to get this condition revoked, otherwise they are severely restricting their target market.

Thanks sydthebeat

I may be mistaken that it is section 47 but the condition tied into the deeds does severely restrict who can buy the house.

Is it likely that Wicklow County Council will lift this restriction for the current owners?

Does anyone have experience with this and how long it may take?

We are trying to close the deal before end of the year to avail of the mortgage interest relief.

Danes

Can anyone tell me what would happen if planning permission is granted with an ambiguous condition which the PA later (when the house is built) interpret as being impossible to comply with?

DOCARCH

Danes wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what would happen if planning permission is granted with an ambiguous condition which the PA later (when the house is built) interpret as being impossible to comply with?

Really need more detail or the nature of the condition.

If you were aware the condition was ambiguous at the time the planning permission was granted and/or when building, it really should have been clarified with the local authority.

Danes

The condition related to sightlines for a residential entrance way on a private lane - the condition states "as near to 90m to a point in the road way" . Many, many discussions were had at the time and in the years since with the PA but I'm unable to give too many details on a public forum.

rayjdav

Danes wrote: »

The condition related to sightlines for a residential entrance way on a private lane - the condition states "as near to 90m to a point in the road way" . Many, many discussions were had at the time and in the years since with the PA but I'm unable to give too many details on a public forum.

The Council's DO NOT READ THESE FORUMS, looking for applicants and their private lives and trying to trip them up in their applications. Hard enough to get them to do a days work 9 to 5 in the office tbh.

If you want useful comment, more detai is required as stated by DOCARCH otherwise ask your agent how to proceed as s/he has all the relevant information.

Danes

It's not the Council I'm worried about. Thank you for your reply.

DOCARCH

What is the problem Danes? Are you selling? Are you looking for an Opinion on Compliance? Is the Council taking enforcement action?

It is really hard to comment without more detail.

What sightlines have you got?

Sorchag

Hello everyone! Sounds like there's a lot of knowledge here, and I was wondering if I could tap into it! Hopefully this story isn't too complicated...

I'm in a sticky situation with Wicklow council. My family have land beside each other. There's my family home, then 3 other homes built by my siblings all in the past 10 years. My mother was the owner of the land (left to her), and was asked on each of my siblings' application to sign a sterilisation order on the remaining land so that nobody else could build. She delayed them on each build so that the others could get their planning permission, and never signed. When my mother passed away a couple of years ago, Wicklow pressed my Dad to sign the order as her estate was being settled. He did. Now I am the last member of my family to begin the process of applying for planning permission, and have first to battle the sterilisation order on the land!

I was told by an architect that sterilisation orders are historic, and not applied anymore on land. Does this help me in getting it lifted? There are no other houses around except my family, so there's noone to object to planning.

I just wanted to get a better grasp of the situation before I start the process in motion - any help anyone could give me would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks in advance.

BryanF

Sorcha don't over complicate the issue. Have you architect arrange an early Pre-planning meeting. Just turn up with the architect and a site layout sketch and talk throught the issues with the planner. Maybe have your reasons for living in the locality (ask your arch about the sf1 form and take a look at it) best of luck

Sorchag

BryanF wrote: »

Sorcha don't over complicate the issue. Have you architect arrange an early Pre-planning meeting. Just turn up with the architect and a site layout sketch and talk throught the issues with the planner. Maybe have your reasons for living in the locality (ask your arch about the sf1 form and take a look at it) best of luck

Thanks Bryan - I guess I should clarify that all of my siblings had a terrible time with planning, with the latest build taking 5 years to pass. The architect I've already spoken to is my own architect, who also dealt with my siblings' planning applications, and she has told me that we will have a big fight on our hands with the order. My main question, I suppose, is whether the sterilisation order is in fact an historical imposition - and is there then a basis for me to say that my father shouldn't have had to sign it in the first place.

Considering the planning itself will take a while to get through, I'd prefer not to lose so much time on this first step of it - and also arm myself with a bit of info on it.

Cheers for your quick reply!

BryanF

Your emtering the territory of legislative/ development plan arguments. Best to look for precedence and prehaps an bord pleannala appeals or planning consultant advice.but I'll still maintain your best to approach the council upfront