short term letting

4ensic15

davindub wrote: »

Thats the exemption the other poster was referring to, she was wondering why it didn't apply to the airBnB property as it had less than 4 bedrooms. The owner needs to be living there as well.

Nothing in the regulations about the owner living in the house.

S.I. No. 600/2001 - Planning and Development Regulations, 2001
Development consisting of the use of not more than 4 bedrooms in a house, where each bedroom is used for the accommodation of not more than 4 persons as overnight guest accommodation, shall be exempted development for the purposes of the Act, provided that such development would not contravene a condition attached to a permission under the Act or be inconsistent with any use specified or included in such a permission.

davindub

Thats a statutory instrument. You'll need to look at the planning and development acts 2000 and amendments, SI's and caselaw.

But the effect of that instrument is....if you have residential planning permission and are meeting those requirements and start to operate a B&B with less than 4 bedrooms, you do not require planning permission.

I actually don't have time this week, but if you are interested read the entire act. The caselaw is very important as well as are the development plans.

4ensic15

davindub wrote: »

Thats a statutory instrument. You'll need to look at the planning and development acts 2000 and amendments, SI's and caselaw.

But the effect of that instrument is....if you have residential planning permission and are meeting those requirements and start to operate a B&B with less than 4 bedrooms, you do not require planning permission.

I actually don't have time this week, but if you are interested read the entire act. The caselaw is very important as well as are the development plans.

The act allows for exemptions by statutory instrument. CAn you quote any section of any act or Si which backs up your statement?

Graham

Baby01032012 wrote: »

I can't link to it however there was a case reported today where north Dublin county council is enforcing a case where a house was being used full time for short term lets without planning permission.

Looks like that wasn't the fire-safety case I was thinking of:

Fingal County Council has started enforcement action against the owner of a property in Malahide following complaints the house was being used exclusively for short-term lettings on Airbnb.

The case is one of three live cases before the local authority at the moment......

Source: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/action-against-dublin-landlord-over-airbnb-after-neighbours-complain-1.3124316

davindub

4ensic15 wrote: »

The act allows for exemptions by statutory instrument. CAn you quote any section of any act or Si which backs up your statement?

4ensic15 wrote: »

The owner does not need to live there for it to residential use. Holiday letting and long term letting are considered different uses. Long term letting and owner occupation are the same planning use.
A B & B of 4 bedrooms is allowed if the owner lives there but a short term self catering arrangement is not a B & B so the exemption would not apply.

Can You?

Look I told you I don't have time this week, its actually not as simple as linking to the act, but I'll get you started, it centers on the underlying planning permission not the exemption, this is the common tread with planning cases, you start with what the property does have planning permission for, apply the exemption on top of that.

4ensic15

davindub wrote: »

Can You?

Look I told you I don't have time this week, its actually not as simple as linking to the act, but I'll get you started, it centers on the underlying planning permission not the exemption, this is the common tread with planning cases, you start with what the property does have planning permission for, apply the exemption on top of that.

Making a proposition and then telling people to verify it by reading the legislation and the case law, without citing cases is nonsense. That is like saying a guard must have his hat on to make a valid arrest and if you don't believe me, look at all the case-law and books.

murphaph

Yup. I often wondered about the B&B clause. I know it makes no mention of owner occupancy.

@davindub: In your opinion, would it be forbidden under law for me to buy 2 halves of a semi-d, live in one half and turn the other half into guest accommodation, going over in the mornings to make up rooms and cook breakfasts?

What about if I also turn my own half into a B&B and "extend" into the other half (but it still being strictly speaking a different property)?

Michael D Not Higgins

4ensic15 wrote: »

Nothing in the regulations about the owner living in the house.

S.I. No. 600/2001 - Planning and Development Regulations, 2001
Development consisting of the use of not more than 4 bedrooms in a house, where each bedroom is used for the accommodation of not more than 4 persons as overnight guest accommodation, shall be exempted development for the purposes of the Act, provided that such development would not contravene a condition attached to a permission under the Act or be inconsistent with any use specified or included in such a permission.

My reading of that last bit is that without living in it, it would constitute a change of use and would need planning permission.

davindub

4ensic15 wrote: »

Making a proposition and then telling people to verify it by reading the legislation and the case law, without citing cases is nonsense. That is like saying a guard must have his hat on to make a valid arrest and if you don't believe me, look at all the case-law and books.

But it is like that. Either you know it or you don't.

Can you not explain yourself in the way you are asking me to do so? You are pretending to be the expert? Prove it. You have stated very clearly above that the owner must live there. You can now attempt to prove that. Take as long as you need.

If you are confused about it, ask nicely in future, given your behaviour I won't explain it for you personally, but someone else might.

Michael D Not Higgins

davindub wrote: »

But it is like that. Either you know it or you don't.

Can you not explain yourself in the way you are asking me to do so? You are pretending to be the expert? Prove it. You have stated very clearly above that the owner must live there. You can now attempt to prove that. Take as long as you need.

If you are confused about it, ask nicely in future, given your behaviour I won't explain it for you personally, but someone else might.

That's enough now. Take the argument to PM if you can't discuss this without a row.