Planning issues - post them here MOD WARNING post #1

Purecuntish

No percolation test hasnt been performed yet,the surveyor/percolation tester was out checking the boundaries and had a walk of the site,seemed happy that the soil was of good enough quality to take a treatment system,he had performed tests on sites close by with similar soil all of which passed.

muffler

Purecuntish wrote: »

No percolation test hasnt been performed yet,the surveyor/percolation tester was out checking the boundaries and had a walk of the site,seemed happy that the soil was of good enough quality to take a treatment system,he had performed tests on sites close by with similar soil all of which passed.

Never judge a book by its cover.

Im a little surprised to hear what the tester said. I hope he qualified his comments by stating that only a full set of tests would determine the suitability.

muffler

Mod hat on: Just a reminder that with a fluid thread like this we really need people to quote the comments they are replying to

Cheers.

stodwyer

muffler wrote: »

Never judge a book by its cover.

Im a little surprised to hear what the tester said. I hope he qualified his comments by stating that only a full set of tests would determine the suitability.

Exactly. Word is worth nothing when it comes to looking to be reimbursed...

A lot of sites can look good on walk over and could be 100% useless for percolation. Ask the owner if a percolation test can be done on the site. Its 650-700€ and takes about a week for the report but once the holes are dug up and water is poured in the assessor will know in an hour if the land is good or not. The trial hole could tell loads as in if the site was used as a dump etc. And it'll put your mind at ease and might help your decision.

S

Purecuntish

stodwyer wrote: »

Exactly. Word is worth nothing when it comes to looking to be reimbursed...

A lot of sites can look good on walk over and could be 100% useless for percolation. Ask the owner if a percolation test can be done on the site. Its 650-700€ and takes about a week for the report but once the holes are dug up and water is poured in the assessor will know in an hour if the land is good or not. The trial hole could tell loads as in if the site was used as a dump etc. And it'll put your mind at ease and might help your decision.

S

Thanks for the advice might ring and ask permission.Should the site pass the percolation test would you be happy to proceed with the purchase or is there any other flaws you can see??Thanks

stodwyer

Purecuntish wrote: »

Thanks for the advice might ring and ask permission.Should the site pass the percolation test would you be happy to proceed with the purchase or is there any other flaws you can see??Thanks

Should site pass the test that's a big obstacle.

Next is housing design and can be discussed with planning. You should have no problems since there is an existing dwelling on the site and I probably down to county development plan and at time the planners personal opinion.

I would mention to the assessor that you are intending on building a 4-5 bedroom extension and use that in his design because if you ever wanted to sell the site with planning for a 2 bedroom house (That has past a test for a 2 bed house) and the new possible owner wants a 5 bedroom, they will have to retest the ground and possibly go thru the same process. Better to go worse case scenario.

IF the site passes the test and you know yourself that its ok and you are ok in buying it I would take 10-15k off the price of the site and put it to the owner. Tell them that the site is struggling percolation wise and that you are taking a risk etc.

S

Purecuntish

stodwyer wrote: »

Should site pass the test that's a big obstacle.

Next is housing design and can be discussed with planning. You should have no problems since there is an existing dwelling on the site and I probably down to county development plan and at time the planners personal opinion.

I would mention to the assessor that you are intending on building a 4-5 bedroom extension and use that in his design because if you ever wanted to sell the site with planning for a 2 bedroom house (That has past a test for a 2 bed house) and the new possible owner wants a 5 bedroom, they will have to retest the ground and possibly go thru the same process. Better to go worse case scenario.

IF the site passes the test and you know yourself that its ok and you are ok in buying it I would take 10-15k off the price of the site and put it to the owner. Tell them that the site is struggling percolation wise and that you are taking a risk etc.

S

Thanks for the advice,suppose theres no harm asking, if they have nothing to hide shouldnt be a problem.

muffler

Purecuntish wrote: »

Thanks for the advice might ring and ask permission.Should the site pass the percolation test would you be happy to proceed with the purchase or is there any other flaws you can see??Thanks

I would strongly recommend that you do not buy until you have PP, your solicitor will give the same advice and if you have a mortgage where part of it is going towards the purchase of the property then I cant see the lender paying out.

Up to yourself what to do but applying for PP is a bit like backing a horse.

Purecuntish

muffler wrote: »

I would strongly recommend that you do not buy until you have PP, your solicitor will give the same advice and if you have a mortgage where part of it is going towards the purchase of the property then I cant see the lender paying out.

Up to yourself what to do but applying for PP is a bit like backing a horse.

I asked originally could i buy the site spp but the owner wasnt willing,i know its a risk that could back fire but at the same time i would hate to lose out on the site and then see in a couple of months time someone else has bought it and had planning approved on it.

sydthebeat

Purecuntish wrote: »

I asked originally could i buy the site spp but the owner wasnt willing,i know its a risk that could back fire but at the same time i would hate to lose out on the site and then see in a couple of months time someone else has bought it and had planning approved on it.

reading elsewhere this appears to be in a forestry area? correct?

a few points:
1. if the dwelling hasnt been lived in for 30-40 years then the council can consider that it has ceased to be a 'house' and is just a derelict building.
Any application for a dwelling will then be seen as a new application and local needs will apply, and kildare co co are excruciatingly difficult when it comes to local needs.

2. if its a forestry area then its more probable that the site conditions are crap and could be unsuitable for treatment of effluent... this is another huge sticking point when it comes to kildare cc.

3. if you have the money to buy this as forestry / agri land and can use it as such... then great. however if you are buying this 'as is' and putting all your eggs into the basket of turning it into a site... you could get left holding a very expensive hot potato.

Purecuntish

sydthebeat wrote: »

reading elsewhere this appears to be in a forestry area? correct?

a few points:
1. if the dwelling hasnt been lived in for 30-40 years then the council can consider that it has ceased to be a 'house' and is just a derelict building.
Any application for a dwelling will then be seen as a new application and local needs will apply, and kildare co co are excruciatingly difficult when it comes to local needs.

2. if its a forestry area then its more probable that the site conditions are crap and could be unsuitable for treatment of effluent... this is another huge sticking point when it comes to kildare cc.

3. if you have the money to buy this as forestry / agri land and can use it as such... then great. however if you are buying this 'as is' and putting all your eggs into the basket of turning it into a site... you could get left holding a very expensive hot potato.

One side of the lane entrance to the site has forestry planted,there is actually over 13 acres in all,8 of which isnt great land and the other 5 which the house is on is good dry land.

According to our architect if the house was completely knocked to the ground local needs would apply but the fact that we plan on keeping part of the existing structure means local needs dosent come in to play (Cant remember the actual wording he used)

The soil in the 5 acre section of land contains a kind of silt or small fragments of stone which the percolation tester considers to be usually very good for drainage,the cottage itself is on slightly higher ground aswell which he thinks might help.

sydthebeat

Purecuntish wrote: »

According to our architect if the house was completely knocked to the ground local needs would apply but the fact that we plan on keeping part of the existing structure means local needs dosent come in to play (Cant remember the actual wording he used)

this is the most pertinent policy

RH 17: To encourage the sensitive restoration of a
derelict traditional vernacular dwelling as an
alternative to the construction of a one-off
dwelling elsewhere. The vernacular dwelling
must be capable of being suitably restored to
habitable accommodation in keeping with its
original character. Documentary evidence to
this effect, including the submission of a
structural survey and photographs must
accompany an application. The applicants or
proposed occupants will not be required to
comply with local need criteria, identiied
in the Plan (Table 4.3). Normal planning,
siting and design considerations will be taken
into consideration.


so a positive presumption will be applied subject to the design and sympathetic restoration of the original cottage.
this is one to challange the skills of your architect, and not just a 'bang up' shoe box extension.

Purecuntish

Purecuntish wrote: »

Thanks for the advice might ring and ask permission.Should the site pass the percolation test would you be happy to proceed with the purchase or is there any other flaws you can see??Thanks

Just a bit of an update,got permission to perform the percolation test from the owner only to receive an email the next day from their solicitor to say that they had advised their client not to facilitate us with access to the site as the site was not being sold subject to pp and the test could be carried out once the site was in our ownership,they also went on to suggest that it could be an insurance risk for their client to allow a third party onto the land especially with machinery being used.Anyone else think this sounds a bit unusual??

Tim Robbins

We have a corner house with is semi detached and at 45 degree angle. I was thinking of going out the back 4 metres and the width of the house is 6 metres so that would mean 24 metres would be the exterior size of the extension. I understand I don't need planning permission for that.

However, if at the beginning of the extension I do an 8 metre width it would mean extension is 32 metres.

Now, I wouldn't technically be going out the side of the house but I would just be extending the back using a wider width of the house. Does that require planning permission?

Thanks a mill.


edit: merged with planning issues thread

sydthebeat

Tim Robbins

Hi,
When do I need / not need planning permission for a garage / block built storage shed in back garden?

Thanks.



edit: merged with planning issues thread

sydthebeat

RKQ

Purecuntish wrote: »

the test could be carried out once the site was in our ownership,they also went on to suggest that it could be an insurance risk for their client to allow a third party onto the land especially with machinery being used.Anyone else think this sounds a bit unusual??

Very strange - best steer clear of this!
They seem to assume pp is a given, a slight formality. Never buy a site without pp unless you can plant crops or use it for pasture. Agricultural land without pp is just agricultural land. Its also significantly cheaper that land with pp.

It would be like buying a second hand car without getting it checked by a mechanic but worse still this solicitor wants you to buy it without putting petrol in it :eek: You can put petrol in it once you own it.

Poor Uncle Tom

RKQ wrote: »

Very strange - best steer clear of this!
They seem to assume pp is a given, a slight formality. Never buy a site without pp unless you can plant crops or use it for pasture. Agricultural land without pp is just agricultural land. Its also significantly cheaper that land with pp.

It would be like buying a second hand car without getting it checked by a mechanic but worse still this solicitor wants you to buy it without putting petrol in it :eek: You can put petrol in it once you own it.

It's strange alright, you would think that the solicitors would facilitate work which could secure a sale.

Even though this is a 'brownfield site' as opposed to being a 'greenfield site', there are no guarantees that planning permission would be granted for redevelopment. It would depend on the site being suitable from a technical nature, which is what is trying to be established.

Purecuntish

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

It's strange alright, you would think that the solicitors would facilitate work which could secure a sale.

Even though this is a 'brownfield site' as opposed to being a 'greenfield site', there are no guarantees that planning permission would be granted for redevelopment. It would depend on the site being suitable from a technical nature, which is what is trying to be established.

Im of the same opinion,surely they would rather allow me perform the test and if it passes secure a sale rather than for me to pull out of the sale altogether and have to go to the trouble of re-advertising and another possible price drop to generate intrest.

sydthebeat

Purecuntish wrote: »

Im of the same opinion,surely they would rather allow me perform the test and if it passes secure a sale rather than for me to pull out of the sale altogether and have to go to the trouble of re-advertising and another possible price drop to generate intrest.

To play devils advocate here....

firstly i dont know what they are selling it as, or how much they are looking for it.. but it sounds like its simply a land sale. If it was a sale of a habitable cottage there would need to be certs of compliance etc. Im sure the asking price reflects this

so assuming its a land sale, they would be completely within their right mind not to sell it subject to planning permission. They just want to sell the land.. what happens to it after is for the purchaser to determine.

also, if they allow you to do a percolation test on what is practiacally forestry land... theres a high chance it could be a serious fail. If it is, then that could ruin the ability of the land to be viewed as suitable for habitation. Why would they take that risk, which could devalue the land?
if it passes the test would they be within their rights to increase the asking price??

its up to the purchaser to determine if the purchase price is low enough to be risk worthy. If its not, then walk away and find another more suitable site. If it is worth the risk, ie if it doesnt pass for planning but you can still earn an income from it to cover the purchase price... then thats an easier decision to make.


just do NOT put all your eggs into this basket if its full of holes!!!

sydthebeat

Tim Robbins wrote: »

We have a corner house with is semi detached and at 45 degree angle. I was thinking of going out the back 4 metres and the width of the house is 6 metres so that would mean 24 metres would be the exterior size of the extension. I understand I don't need planning permission for that.

However, if at the beginning of the extension I do an 8 metre width it would mean extension is 32 metres.

Now, I wouldn't technically be going out the side of the house but I would just be extending the back using a wider width of the house. Does that require planning permission?

Thanks a mill.

can you explain how you can extend wider than the house.... but yet not go beyond the sides of the house

any width wider than the rear will wider than the house.

just because the site might shoot off on an angle doesnt mean the house sides do.

antodeco

Building a two story extension to the side of the house, and was wondering what the process is for applying for planning permission and how long does it take? Thanks

BryanF

antodeco wrote: »

Building a two story extension to the side of the house, and was wondering what the process is for applying for planning permission and how long does it take? Thanks

in very very brief terms,the process is generally: get an arch/arch tech to determine the situation/households requirements and look for local precedence, do you a design, ensure your happy, summit for planning, generally 2 months from submission you'll get your answer, then you've a further month before council give final grant, then tender drawings & scope of work folllowed by tender process with maybe 3/6 builders, and off you go - enter a contract with your prefered builder, prefferably with arch engaged until the end of the process.

hexosan

Can anyone answer this do you need planning permission to convert an existing garage to a home office, games room or bedroom.

Poor Uncle Tom

hexosan wrote: »

Can anyone answer this do you need planning permission to convert an existing garage to a home office, games room or bedroom.

This is the relevant section of SI 600 of 2001 it needs to comply with:

Development within the curtilage of a house

CLASS 1

The extension of a house, by the construction or erection of an extension (including a conservatory) to the rear of the house or by the conversion for use as part of the house of any garage, store, shed or other similar structure attached to the rear or to the side of the house.

PROVIDED THAT

1. (a) Where the house has not been extended previously, the floor area of any such extension shall not exceed 40 square metres.

(b) Subject to paragraph (a), where the house is terraced or semi-detached, the floor area of any extension above ground level shall not exceed 12 square metres.

(c) Subject to paragraph (a), where the house is detached, the floor area of any extension above ground level shall not exceed 20 square metres.

2. (a) Where the house has been extended previously, the floor area of any such extension, taken together with the floor area of any previous extension or extensions constructed or erected after 1 October 1964, including those for which planning permission has been obtained, shall not exceed 40 square metres.

(b) Subject to paragraph (a), where the house is terraced or semi-detached and has been extended previously, the floor area of any extension above ground level taken together with the floor area of any previous extension or extensions above ground level constructed or erected after 1 October 1964, including those for which planning permission has been obtained, shall not exceed 12 square metres.

(c) Subject to paragraph (a), where the house is detached and has been extended previously, the floor area of any extension above ground level, taken together with the floor area of any previous extension or extensions above ground level constructed or erected after 1 October 1964, including those for which planning permission has been obtained, shall not exceed 20 square metres.

3. Any above ground floor extension shall be a distance of not less than 2 metres from any party boundary.

4. (a) Where the rear wall of the house does not include a gable, the height of the walls of any such extension shall not exceed the height of the rear wall of the house.

(b) Where the rear wall of the house includes a gable, the height of the walls of any such extension shall not exceed the height of the side walls of the house.

(c) The height of the highest part of the roof of any such extension shall not exceed, in the case of a flat roofed extension, the height of the eaves or parapet, as may be appropriate, or, in any other case, shall not exceed the height of the highest part of the roof of the dwelling.

5. The construction or erection of any such extension to the rear of the house shall not reduce the area of private open space, reserved exclusively for the use of the occupants of the house, to the rear of the house to less than 25 square metres.

6. (a) Any window proposed at ground level in any such extension shall not be less than 1 metre from the boundary it faces.

(b) Any window proposed above ground level in any such extension shall not be less than 11 metres from the boundary it faces.

(c) Where the house is detached and the floor area of the extension above ground level exceeds 12 square metres, any window proposed at above ground level shall not be less than 11 metres from the boundary it faces.

7. The roof of any extension shall not be used as a balcony or roof garden.

as well as not breaching Article 9 and as long as the property is not part of a listed or protected structure.

whatnot

Hi all
wondering if i need planning
old house built 1930s "A"frame roof , extension added 1975 same length and width as origonal with flat roof. can i put the roofs under one "A" pitch not changing the height of existing ridge just the position to new centre.

Poor Uncle Tom

whatnot wrote: »

Hi all
wondering if i need planning
old house built 1930s "A"frame roof , extension added 1975 same length and width as origonal with flat roof. can i put the roofs under one "A" pitch not changing the height of existing ridge just the position to new centre.

Yes, you need planning permission.

bryaj

How is the front of a house determined -
Front of house was accessed off N7, this access was closed when road was upgraded. Access to house is now off new road that was constructed to rear of house.
Can I construct a 40m/2 extension to what was the front of the house?

For planning purposes is the front of the house that which faces the public road that the house is accessed off?

How does planning authority determine front of house in unusual circumstances?

Thanks in advance.

sydthebeat

bryaj wrote: »

How is the front of a house determined -
Front of house was accessed off N7, this access was closed when road was upgraded. Access to house is now off new road that was constructed to rear of house.
Can I construct a 40m/2 extension to what was the front of the house?

For planning purposes is the front of the house that which faces the public road that the house is accessed off?

How does planning authority determine front of house in unusual circumstances?

Thanks in advance.

it's usually pretty obvious which face is the front of the house.

My local authority have a rule of thumb that's whatever face the front door is on, is the front of the house.

A section 8 application would clarify in any regard.

yeahyeah78

My neighbour has notified me of an intention to build an extension today.
We are both mid terrace and he has sent me plans that show he plans to basically build the largest extension he can without applying for planning permission.
It will severely affect the light and perception of space in what is already a small back garden.
I honestly believe that this will majorly affect the resale value of my house which is already in negative equity.
What are my options?

He also plans to retain the minimum 25 sq metre of garden but this includes a garden shed which contravenes the guidelines.

I understand that many of the users of this forum are more inclined towards the building of extensions rather than the obstruction of them but this really is a major concern for me and my family as the extension which is to the boundary wall will raise the level of the division from 1.7 metres to 3.5 metres.

Is there someone I can consult within the local planning department who investigates whether such extensions contravene the current guidelines.

Poor Uncle Tom

yeahyeah78 wrote: »

My neighbour has notified me of an intention to build an extension today.
We are both mid terrace and he has sent me plans that show he plans to basically build the largest extension he can without applying for planning permission.
It will severely affect the light and perception of space in what is already a small back garden.
I honestly believe that this will majorly affect the resale value of my house which is already in negative equity.
What are my options?

He also plans to retain the minimum 25 sq metre of garden but this includes a garden shed which contravenes the guidelines.

If this is the case, then what your neighbour plans to build is not an exempted development.

yeahyeah78 wrote: »

I understand that many of the users of this forum are more inclined towards the building of extensions rather than the obstruction of them but this really is a major concern for me and my family as the extension which is to the boundary wall will raise the level of the division from 1.7 metres to 3.5 metres.

If any extension is up to, but not on, the boundary, then it does not raise the level of the boundary. It is just a small point, but it is important.

yeahyeah78 wrote: »

Is there someone I can consult within the local planning department who investigates whether such extensions contravene the current guidelines.

Yes, the enforcement section of the Local Authority, usually at the planning offices, put your concerns on paper and date it, get a written acknowledgement for it as well.

It was recently found that a lot of enforcement sections were not doing all they were supposed to for people, and actually led to a circular letter being sent from the Department to each LA, to remind them of their duties.