Buying agricultural land with a view to getting planning permission and selling it on

LadyLavery

CalRobert wrote: »

Well, if you have any more success or learn anything else I'm all ears. It's just flabbergasting that you can take two people - maybe both of them have even lived in Dublin for several years - and it's illegal for one of them to build on land where another person can. It really sounds like it should be challenged in court.

It seems like the only available option is to buy a house with a quarter acre garden someplace and hopefully buy some farm land nearby to 'live the dream'! I completely agree with you, I really don't get how it's ok for one type of person (i.e. someone from a farming family) to build on land but not another, when the one who is allowed may not have any intention to farm, while the other may be pursuing a lifelong dream to live off the land. On the other hand, I don't think anyone should be dictated to on how they use it either. Just seems bafflingly nonsensical to me.

Lumen

LadyLavery wrote: »

Depends how you define inefficient. If you mean not make lots of money, yes probably I'd be inefficient. If you mean not make the best use of the land, your statement wouldn't necessarily be true. I have to say I'm pretty taken aback by the depth of negative feeling towards the OP's idea.

I'm not being perjorative, but efficient farming is the whole basis for modern civilization. Without it this conversation would not be happening.

CalRobert

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not being perjorative, but efficient farming is the whole basis for modern civilization. Without it this conversation would not be happening.

The green revolution did wonders for world hunger, but at this point maybe we should reconsider making it a legal requirement to destroy a place's ability to sustain wildilife (I.e. Farming it) so you can live there.

LadyLavery

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not being perjorative, but efficient farming is the whole basis for modern civilization. Without it this conversation would not be happening.

Ok I understand, but modern civilization isn't doing too great a job of being efficient at the moment. What I'd like to do wouldn't have a negative impact on the environment. In fact Teagasc or Coillte were recently advertising a grant for people to grow trees on their land, so it's apparently something that is needed.

The way I see it we have 3 problems here:

1) Efficient use of agricultural land
2) Housing crisis
3) Environmental impact of mankind

1) By only allowing farming families to build on agricultural land, we are not guaranteeing in any way that the land will be used efficiently. Nobody is dictating to them what they must do with the land.

2) If the planning rules were more up-to-date, then more people would build, freeing up their previous homes for others to 'get on the ladder'.

3) We're having a massively negative impact on our planet and if there are those of us who want to spend our own hard earned cash to plant trees or live more sustainably, it shouldn't be so difficult for us to do.

I get why people are a bit leery of the whole idea, thinking that it's profiteering going on. And to be fair that may be what the OP had in mind, but on the other hand, even if he did build, it would be solving problem no. 2, the housing crisis, so in my mind it should be given careful consideration by the planners.

But for me, all I want to do is grow some trees and get some more fresh air out there

I think someone posted about a Danish law prohibiting profiteering and maybe that's what we should be looking to do.

Lumen

The planning laws we have are there to curb ribbon development, which is an inefficient and environmentally damaging way to distribute a given population.

LadyLavery

Unless you're from a farming family....

Lumen

LadyLavery wrote: »

Unless you're from a farming family....

Yes, sort of. They're exemptions from the rules.

And while I don't agree with the exemptions (we don't need more farmers, so there's no need for more housing for farmers) you seem to be arguing on the basis of fairness that everyone should be allowed to build on whatever land they can acquire, which puts us back to a time of unregulated development. Is that want you want, for there to be no limits on development in rural areas?

If we did that in the current housing market and with the current reliance on the private sector to provide housing with government subsidized rents, what would happen is that all the poor people would inevitably get shunted to apartment blocks in the middle of nowhere.

fallen01angel

For some reason I'm unable to quote the post : "It seems impossible. If you're not a farmer, or the son or daughter of a farmer, you won't get planning permission. That's what I was told by the planning office this week. I don't get the logic of it. A son or daughter can build and then sell...?"

Just a side note on the above response,I'm a farmers daughter,was willed a half acre site as was my brother and both of us were refused planning on numerous occasions,to the point after many years of rejection/throwing good money after bad, we just stopped trying and bought houses (in estates) miles and miles and miles away.
To the OP,you will have to really really do your homework in regards to zoning,if you haven't experienced it,the restrictions can be mind blowing,although they may have eased off in the the last few years.

CalRobert

Lumen wrote: »

The planning laws we have are there to curb ribbon development, which is an inefficient and environmentally damaging way to distribute a given population.

That's true. It's catastrophically inefficient. Of course, the reason it's so damaging can generally be traced to auto-dependence - ribbon development is fine if you're walking or cycling, or even on horseback I suppose. Then again, when you're paying for distance with your own effort people tend to space things better.

Actually, it would be amazing to be somewhere with roads that were nearly impossible to drive on but could be traversed with a cargo bike (just make them really narrow I suppose - but it raises issues with access for emergency vehicles). I noted a couple pages ago that most one off houses are horrendous environmentally, but for the odd person who doesn't just want a cheap giant house and a long drive to work, it might be OK. I was curious about the topic mostly because I just got a remote job and can work from anywhere. It's not exactly "the country", but I'm considering Cloughjordan for a lot of the reasons in this thread.

The rules still ought to treat people the same, though. It's not like farming is a good use of land; considering that it only exists as a way to grab subsidies from the EU I don't think it can be called efficient.

Seth Brundle

CalRobert wrote: »

The rules still ought to treat people the same, though. It's not like farming is a good use of land; considering that it only exists as a way to grab subsidies from the EU I don't think it can be called efficient.

Not all farming gets subsidies from the EU!

arctictree

Basically, the rules as they current stand is that no one is allowed build in an area which is zoned for agriculture. The only exception to this is the 'local need' clause. If this was removed then no one would be allowed build new houses in rural areas.

To the posters talking about the eco dream of buying a few acres and living self sufficiently. While this is a great idea in principle, in practice, you would just have everyone saying they want to do this and then getting permission. At least the local need rule is very hard to scam.

Apiarist

arctictree wrote: »

To the posters talking about the eco dream of buying a few acres and living self sufficiently.

Those eco-dreamers can just buy a whole farm. Here is one for €330K, with 11 acres of land (enough to feed a family):

http://www.daft.ie/meath/commercial-property-for-sale/agricultural-farm-land-for-sale/rodstown-road-allenstown-navan-meath-645026/

You would struggle to build a house and outbuildings needed for any farming activity for this price even if you got the land for free.

slavetothegrind

arctictree wrote: »

At least the local need rule is very hard to scam.

funny. Tell me another....

Usually a short 5 year bar on selling on, that's it.

You will be telling me next that the majority of these local needs housing contain active farmers........

LadyLavery

Lumen wrote: »

Yes, sort of. They're exemptions from the rules.

And while I don't agree with the exemptions (we don't need more farmers, so there's no need for more housing for farmers) you seem to be arguing on the basis of fairness that everyone should be allowed to build on whatever land they can acquire, which puts us back to a time of unregulated development. Is that want you want, for there to be no limits on development in rural areas?

If we did that in the current housing market and with the current reliance on the private sector to provide housing with government subsidized rents, what would happen is that all the poor people would inevitably get shunted to apartment blocks in the middle of nowhere.

I don't agree that that would happen. Also, I know it's appears to be an unpopular view, but I do think that the laws should be relaxed. It may be inefficient, but we are all different people with different requirements. One size doesn't fit all. I don't know what the solution is, but it's good that we're discussing it anyway!

LadyLavery

fallen01angel wrote: »

For some reason I'm unable to quote the post : "It seems impossible. If you're not a farmer, or the son or daughter of a farmer, you won't get planning permission. That's what I was told by the planning office this week. I don't get the logic of it. A son or daughter can build and then sell...?"

Just a side note on the above response,I'm a farmers daughter,was willed a half acre site as was my brother and both of us were refused planning on numerous occasions,to the point after many years of rejection/throwing good money after bad, we just stopped trying and bought houses (in estates) miles and miles and miles away.
To the OP,you will have to really really do your homework in regards to zoning,if you haven't experienced it,the restrictions can be mind blowing,although they may have eased off in the the last few years.

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you and sorry you didn't get planning. Even though you fit the criteria, you still didn't get permission. I just don't get why it's so strict.

MayoSalmon

Eric Cartman wrote:

Im sorry youre offended that housing estates and bland apartments dont suit everyone.

Mad the way it suits the majority of the Western world..must be them lot that are wrong alright.

wrangler

LadyLavery wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you and sorry you didn't get planning. Even though you fit the criteria, you still didn't get permission. I just don't get why it's so strict.

As a farmer that gave permission to allow houses built on our private road, I see the reason, dogs chasing my sheep, guards called for supposedly dirtying the road, and ESB poles out in my land where newbies wouldn't allow them in their hedge.
What Have we got now,.. a developement in the middle of the country where every well is within 25 mtrs of a septic tank.
I was in Scotland lately where every farm had only one or at the most two houses. lovely countryside

qwerty ui op

Property Investor wrote: »

I see agricultural land being divided into approx. 0.5 acre sites, getting planning permission and being sold on all the time so it would seem to be a doable endeavor. Any constructive advice and personal experiences of such would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

:pac::pac::pac: Are we back in 1985.
Where have you seen this?

handlemaster

I dont know why people dont this more. Often times it appears you can buy a few acres of land for the price of a site in the same area. Example below. Looks like a Nice area and town close by
https://touch.daft.ie/roscommon/commercial-property-for-sale/agricultural-farm-land-for-sale/salmons-lane-ballyleague-roscommon-501601

handlemaster

https://www.daft.ie/roscommon/commercial-property-for-sale/agricultural-farm-land-for-sale/salmons-lane-ballyleague-roscommon-501601 Salmons Lane, Ballyleague, Co. Roscommon - Agricultural Commercial

Del2005

handlemaster wrote: »

I dont know why people dont this more. Often times it appears you can buy a few acres of land for the price of a site in the same area. Example below. Looks like a Nice area and town close by
https://touch.daft.ie/roscommon/commercial-property-for-sale/agricultural-farm-land-for-sale/salmons-lane-ballyleague-roscommon-501601

All you can do is farm that land, it's only of use to a farmer who lives close by. You won't get permission to build on it.

handlemaster

Del2005 wrote: »

handlemaster wrote: »

I dont know why people dont this more. Often times it appears you can buy a few acres of land for the price of a site in the same area. Example below. Looks like a Nice area and town close by
https://touch.daft.ie/roscommon/commercial-property-for-sale/agricultural-farm-land-for-sale/salmons-lane-ballyleague-roscommon-501601

All you can do is farm that land, it's only of use to a farmer who lives close by. You won't get permission to build on it.

Im not a planning expert but there seems to be a house beside it. I would think its very possible

Ray Palmer

Del2005 wrote: »

All you can do is farm that land, it's only of use to a farmer who lives close by. You won't get permission to build on it.

You could easily redevelop the house on it and rent out some of the land to a local farmer. You may even be better off converting the out buildings.

On the OPs query the basic answer is no and high risk.

I know a few people who bought land thinking the could get planning only to find out it was next to impossible. One had some scheme of living in a mobile home on the land for 2 years while "farming" the land to qualify for local need. The local farmer that originally wanted to buy the land intentionally made that not possible and reported them. They sold the land at a loss and it was to the farmer but he hid behind a friend so they wouldn't know.

Even extending an existing house can be problematic. Same people bought a small farm house and planned to quadruple the size and the architect kept telling them they would have no problems at all. The were refused and the architect was way off as the planners had been telling him all along that it was way too big but he never told his clients. The ended up being able to double the size only.

qwerty ui op

The vast majority of houses build on .5 acre are either-
within 15 mins drive of a decent size town
or
10 mins drive to a village/small town but this is somewhat compensated for by being only 30/40mins from dublin cork limerick or galway.

New builds are now so expensive that it's rare for people to go for that option outside this range. I know several sons and daughters of land owners who could get planning and free site but don't bother because they're not gonna pour 200k+ onto the ground in the ass end of nowhere.