Log cabins & legality? 5k to buy, 850 pm rent.

appfry

kceire wrote: »

This just proves my point. The planners are not involved in the enforcement of planning matters. Planning Enforcement Officiers, completely separate to the planners that deal with planning applications man the Enforcement Section (Dublin anyway), as I said, it may have been an old wives tale or not all the info passed on when people pass the story on.

We all know these people that built so and so without planning but if nobody makes a complaint then they don't get acted on, but when it comes to selling or re-mortgage it will be caught and permission will be required for a clean sale.

Well I can tell you that I sold a house with granny flat that had no planning permission a couple of years ago.
The buyers solicitor copped it, and then the two solicitors came up with a way around it.
These things happen all the time, and are gotten around every day.

athtrasna

Mod note

This forum is not an appropriate place for the discussion of legal loopholes.

appfry

Im not suggesting loopholes. I am just pointing out that planning enforcement isnt a certain thing as some people belive. It is quite the opposite in practice. Its getting permission in the first place that is difficult.
Not getting permission and fixing it all up afterwards in one way or another is quite easy.

Graham

appfry wrote: »

Not getting permission and fixing it all up afterwards in one way or another is quite easy.

I'm sure it's very easy when it goes your way. Not so much when it doesn't.

tradesman

I'm in the process of buying my late fathers house from his estate. It is a bungalow on 1/2 acre. He bought it about 25 yrs ago just had to move his furniture in. In the process of me buying the house suddenly the house was built too far into the plot, front wall was too close to the road. Entrance gate should have been on the LHS not on the RHS. Garage roof was too high. Apart from that everything was ok! Applied for retention & everything was given without a question being asked. Council / solicitors obviously knew they made a mistake years ago so let it go

Obviously building a new permanent structure would require planning when not falling within the exemptions. However there is a provision in the Planning Act that an existing building "within the curtilage of a house" can be used "for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the house as such" .

Clearly this would exclude use of the structure as an independent building or a house in its own right... but I wonder if allowing a family member of the house who needs supervision and care to sleep there, could be an arguable incidental use.

It would be interesting to see if uses such as this has been teased out in Court or by the Bord Pleanala.

appfry

Deleted User wrote: »

Obviously building a new permanent structure would require planning when not falling within the exemptions. However there is a provision in the Planning Act that an existing building "within the curtilage of a house" can be used "for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the house as such" .

Clearly this would exclude use of the structure as an independent building or a house in its own right... but I wonder if allowing a family member of the house who needs supervision and care to sleep there, could be an arguable incidental use.

It would be interesting to see if uses such as this has been teased out in Court or by the Bord Pleanala.

See home many cases you find of people being asked to knock down or do away with their structures which are not according to planning.
Not too many at all.
Not talking about high profile developer cases that are followed through solely because of the media focus.

Gumbo

Deleted User wrote: »

Obviously building a new permanent structure would require planning when not falling within the exemptions. However there is a provision in the Planning Act that an existing building "within the curtilage of a house" can be used "for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the house as such" .

Clearly this would exclude use of the structure as an independent building or a house in its own right... but I wonder if allowing a family member of the house who needs supervision and care to sleep there, could be an arguable incidental use.

It would be interesting to see if uses such as this has been teased out in Court or by the Bord Pleanala.

I'm involved in 2 cases at the moment and I can assure you Planning Enf section are ready to issued enforcement proceedings against the home owners. One got retention to keep the shed (being used as a bedroom with its own kitchen etc) but they have to build the link to join it to the main dwelling.

The other has no way of linking to the house. He has got retention to keep the structure as a shed or garden room etc but the habitable use has to cease immediately.

Both of these cases in North Dublin currently.

appfry wrote: »

See home many cases you find of people being asked to knock down or do away with their structures which are not according to planning.
Not too many at all.
Not talking about high profile developer cases that are followed through solely because of the media focus.

I know many through work but obviously can't link to anything as they are. It online. Plan Enf dealings are confidential so you don't get the details published like you do for a planning app.

This week alone I've seen 2 vehicular entrances having to be removed and a complete dormer window structure on an end of terrace house in Dublin.

appfry

kceire wrote: »

I'm involved in 2 cases at the moment and I can assure you Planning Enf section are ready to issued enforcement proceedings against the home owners. One got retention to keep the shed (being used as a bedroom with its own kitchen etc) but they have to build the link to join it to the main dwelling.

The other has no way of linking to the house. He has got retention to keep the structure as a shed or garden room etc but the habitable use has to cease immediately.

Both of these cases in North Dublin currently.



I know many through work but obviously can't link to anything as they are. It online. Plan Enf dealings are confidential so you don't get the details published like you do for a planning app.

This week alone I've seen 2 vehicular entrances having to be removed and a complete dormer window structure on an end of terrace house in Dublin.

So that would be very few then.

Gumbo

appfry wrote: »

So that would be very few then.

Depends on your interpretation of very few.
That's 3 this week alone and just 3 in my area. There's more people that cover other areas and they would have 3 or more each.

Similar to speeding, very few get caught but the more that do it the more the chance of getting caught.

appfry

Up and down the country everybody knows people who have gone against planning.
Those same people would know how many out of those have been asked to remove their structures.
As usual the scare stories about the big bad monster coming to get you and what COULD happen to you if you dare step out of line are many, especially by a few people. But the real cases of something actually happening are few and far between.
The country is full of things that are against the rules but the punishment isnt there for breaking the rules.

Ive a friend who has just built a home cinema in his attic, along with a sofa bed in case he needs it for guests. He didnt bother with planning permission.A few years ago, another friend, as we were watching Die hard in the illegal attic conversion, said to him that the room was against planning and fire regulations and the planners would be out to get him. His answer .... "Should woulda coulda, they'll never take me alive."

athtrasna

Mod note

Appfry the planning system is a legal system. Any further celebration of people who didn't abide by the law will lead to cards.

appfry

athtrasna wrote: »

Mod note

Appfry the planning system is a legal system. Any further celebration of people who didn't abide by the law will lead to cards.

Its not celebration, nor have I said anything at all about loop holes, nor did I encourage any particular behaviour.
As I said before I am pointing out that the planning system is not enforced as much, nor as cut and dried as people seem to think it is.

Gumbo

appfry wrote: »

Ive a friend who has just built a home cinema in his attic, along with a sofa bed in case he needs it for guests. He didnt bother with planning permission.A few years ago, another friend, as we were watching Die hard in the illegal attic conversion, said to him that the room was against planning and fire regulations and the planners would be out to get him. His answer .... "Should woulda coulda, they'll never take me alive."

An attic conversion does not require planning permission.
The fire regulations is a building control issue, not a planning issue.

tayto lover

kceire wrote: »

I'm involved in 2 cases at the moment and I can assure you Planning Enf section are ready to issued enforcement proceedings against the home owners. One got retention to keep the shed (being used as a bedroom with its own kitchen etc) but they have to build the link to join it to the main dwelling.

The other has no way of linking to the house. He has got retention to keep the structure as a shed or garden room etc but the habitable use has to cease immediately.

Both of these cases in North Dublin currently.

How is the bit in bold defined by the authorities please?
Do you mean that if you have a nice little shed with a few bunk beds the grandkids couldn't have a sleep-out in the summer?

Gumbo

tayto lover wrote: »

How is the bit in bold defined by the authorities please?
Do you mean that if you have a nice little shed with a few bunk beds the grandkids couldn't have a sleep-out in the summer?

Basically, if it has a kitchen or bedroom it's deemed to capable of been habitable and that's how they enforce it.

Technically no to the summer sleep over but that's not the problem as that it's relatively scarce. The use of the shed as permanent habitation would be more of a worry to the enforcement section I would imagine.

One shed recently, they made the owner remove the shower unit. I disagreed with this as my opinion is you an have a shower in a shed for wash facilities etc but it was that or the kitchen. The shower was the cheaper option in this case.

The bedroom is easily fixed, as all you have to do is remove the bed.

tayto lover

kceire wrote: »

Basically, if it has a kitchen or bedroom it's deemed to capable of been habitable and that's how they enforce it.

Technically no to the summer sleep over but that's not the problem as that it's relatively scarce. The use of the shed as permanent habitation would be more of a worry to the enforcement section I would imagine.

One shed recently, they made the owner remove the shower unit. I disagreed with this as my opinion is you an have a shower in a shed for wash facilities etc but it was that or the kitchen. The shower was the cheaper option in this case.

The bedroom is easily fixed, as all you have to do is remove the bed.

Thanks for that.
Is there a problem with putting a mobile home in your garden and have someone inhabiting it?

Gumbo

tayto lover wrote: »

Thanks for that.
Is there a problem with putting a mobile home in your garden and have someone inhabiting it?

Yes. Planning is required and will most likely be refused.

Sleeper12

Definitely legal once you get full planning permission. It'll set you back around 25k to fully install. Obviously you need an electric supply, water supply, waste water etc.

Gumbo

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Definitely legal once you get full planning permission. It'll set you back around 25k to fully install. Obviously you need an electric supply, water supply, waste water etc.

The problem is getting the permission. I don't know of one case in Dublin that has got permission for a habitable space in the rear garden that isint connected to the main house (granny flat or extension).

Sleeper12

kceire wrote:

The problem is getting the permission. I don't know of one case in Dublin that has got permission for a habitable space in the rear garden that isint connected to the main house (granny flat or extension).

I have seen some. Not log cabins but granny flats. The ones that told me that they have permission are big detached houses with gardens big enough to put half a dozen houses in. But for you & I in regular houses any granny flats I've seen don't have permission.
A friend has a log cabin & rents it out. No permission of course. Toilet, basin and shower. Bedroom big enough for double bed wardrobe etc. Sitting room with gally kitchen. Very comfortable & perfect for single person or couple. They can make good homes. I wouldn't mind living in it if I was single

gctest50

appfry wrote: »

......

Ive a friend who has just built a home cinema in his attic, along with a sofa bed in case he needs it for guests. He didnt bother with planning permission.A few years ago, another friend, as we were watching Die hard in the illegal attic conversion, said to him that the room was against planning and fire regulations and the planners would be out to get him. His answer .... "Should woulda coulda, they'll never take me alive."

If there is a fire the house insurance company may not pay out

It may turn a small fire into a very big one, it could work like a huge chimney once it gets going at all

Gumbo

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I have seen some. Not log cabins but granny flats. The ones that told me that they have permission are big detached houses with gardens big enough to put half a dozen houses in. But for you & I in regular houses any granny flats I've seen don't have permission.
A friend has a log cabin & rents it out. No permission of course. Toilet, basin and shower. Bedroom big enough for double bed wardrobe etc. Sitting room with gally kitchen. Very comfortable & perfect for single person or couple. They can make good homes. I wouldn't mind living in it if I was single

Plenty of granny flats get permission in regular houses in Dublin.
I'm currently lodging for 3 accross cabra, Palmerstown and Clonshaugh.

I think a lot of people get mixed up in the terms of what people call granny flats and log cabins etc

Granny flats is an old slang term for 'ancillary family accommodation' and this takes the form of an extension that is connected to the main dwelling with an internal link.

The ones you say that have Planning as stand alone structures, I'd like to see their grant of permission, and that's public information on the local authorities website once you give a reference number or house address, nothing secret Ai you can check straight away if they are telling porkies or the truth.

The simple fact is that you cannot get permission for ancillary accommodation in this country unless it is connected to the main dwelling. It's actually written into the councils development plans.

I'd like to see one that been giving permission as it may set a precedent.

kceire

kceire wrote: »

Basically, if it has a kitchen or bedroom it's deemed to capable of been habitable and that's how they enforce it.

My understand is that the legislation doesnt say anything about being habitable or not. It speaks about use for 'any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the house'.

Obviously if an existing shed is being used as a separate residence, it can't be incidental to the enjoyment of the house, but I suspect planners are using 'habitabily' as a proxy for non-incidental use.

I think it is arguable that use for genuine overflow family guests in the summer would fit the definition in the legislation, whereas letting it out would not.

What the building actually contains eg Kitchen, bedroom, might be evidence pointing towards its use but not actual evidence of its use.

Thats why I would be curious to see if there are any Court or Bord Pleanala rulings on this.

riclad

IF you have 40sq m garden, you leave 25sq metres empty and then just build onto the side of the house ,as long its as it under a certain height ,
You wont need planning permission.
eg build on a 15metres site .

Sleeper12

kceire wrote:

Plenty of granny flats get permission in regular houses in Dublin. I'm currently lodging for 3 accross cabra, Palmerstown and Clonshaugh.

Sorry I meant granny flats built at the end of gardens. Separate to the house. It's easier to get permission for something like this if you have a large detached house with a massive garden.

Gumbo

Deleted User wrote: »

My understand is that the legislation doesnt say anything about being habitable or not. It speaks about use for 'any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the house'.

Obviously if an existing shed is being used as a separate residence, it can't be incidental to the enjoyment of the house, but I suspect planners are using 'habitabily' as a proxy for non-incidental use.

I think it is arguable that use for genuine overflow family guests in the summer would fit the definition in the legislation, whereas letting it out would not.

What the building actually contains eg Kitchen, bedroom, might be evidence pointing towards its use but not actual evidence of its use.

Thats why I would be curious to see if there are any Court or Bord Pleanala rulings on this.

I don't know. Why haven't the enforcement actions been argued if there is a way to get them to comply? I'm not aware of an ABP rulings which go against the LA's decision not to allow habitation in a separate structure in the rear garden either.

Also, the exempted development lists the types of structures that are exempt in the regulations, maybe not stated in the Act but the regulations state what can be built under these exempted rules.

riclad wrote: »

IF you have 40sq m garden, you leave 25sq metres empty and then just build onto the side of the house ,as long its as it under a certain height ,
You wont need planning permission.
eg build on a 15metres site .

You cannot build to the side without planning. If you build to the rear then it's exempt but to the side requires planning.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Sorry I meant granny flats built at the end of gardens. Separate to the house. It's easier to get permission for something like this if you have a large detached house with a massive garden.

No it's not really. You cannot get permission for separate granny flats unless hey are connected to the main dwelling. What most like those people have are garden rooms. If they have planning just post up the granted ref number or go look at the application on the LA website to confirm if is a granny flat or a garden room.

moleyv

There is so much wrong in this thread I wouldn't even bother :pac:

Gumbo

moleyv wrote: »

There is so much wrong in this thread I wouldn't even bother :pac:

Depends on who you are referring the comment to.

moleyv

kceire wrote:

Depends on who you are referring the comment to.

I'm saying I wouldn't bother if I were you.