# Planning Permission occupancy clause: Are there penalties for selling inside 7 years?



## mister mac (28 Sep 2006)

I am planning to build a house in the country and i know the P.P. will come with this clause attached. Are there penalties for selling a house inside the 7 years? or is it possible to buy out the clause?


----------



## whackin (28 Sep 2006)

*Re: Planning Permission occupancy clause*

In  theory there might be penalties but in reality, they can't stop you selling your house if for some reason you can't pay the mortgage etc...


----------



## turtle77 (28 Sep 2006)

How soon after building it are you planning to sell it?


----------



## extopia (28 Sep 2006)

If you disregard a clause attached to PP in theory you negate the PP itself. So you might find yourself selling a house without any planning permission - which of course no one in their right mind would buy. If you go ahead and put it on the market and accept an offer the buyer's solicitor will notice this right away. You need to talk to a good solicitor before you go ahead.


----------



## Bamhan (28 Sep 2006)

Those clauses are not enforced in most cases.
They are there to prevent ribbon development.
They are intended to stop developers building one off houses in rural areas and then selling them on.
MAny PP are dependent on showing a housing need, having a particular need to live in a certain area etc.
If you meet those criteria and you intend to live in the house for a reasonable amount of time you would most likely not be penalised should you need to sell your house in the future.
If down the line your job moved, you could not pay the mortgage or whatever they would not enfore the PP condition.
If after a few months you decided to move I think there would be legal implications alright.


----------



## construct_06 (28 Sep 2006)

*Re: Planning Permission occupancy clause: Are there penalties for selling inside 7 ye*

if after living in the house for a reasonable amount of time and you find your circumstances have changed (ie. you are moving because of your job, or want to sell because you cannot afford house repayments etc.....) you can apply to the Co. Co. for a dispensation or relaxation of the particular condition concerning occupancy. If the case is genuine (or at least can be demonstated to be so) there should be no problem.

Alternatively, if a potential buyer is aware of this clause when buying and they have no problem with it, you could proceed on that basis. I believe that the building and site would be in substantial compliance with planning permission and i dont think house insurance or any other insurance would be affected by not having complied with the occupancy clause. So if the buyer instructed his solicitor to ignore the clause then you could proceed with sale.

Anyway the clause would elapse after the 7 years anyway.

I cannot see how the Co. Co. could enforce this particular clause anyway.

Would be interested in others opinions/experiences.


----------



## Newshound (28 Sep 2006)

I am wondering if an issue has arisen that requires you selling the site now? It appears you haven't even built yet? so why are you unduly worried about the 7 years... 

As mentioned earlier, local authorities impose such conditions where there is development pressure in a particular area. In such cases, they would not normally grant permission. But given your affinity to the area (due to family, work, etc), they grant permission and add the condition to ensure such sites do not become party to speculators.


----------



## extopia (28 Sep 2006)

*Re: Planning Permission occupancy clause: Are there penalties for selling inside 7 ye*



construct_06 said:


> if the buyer instructed his solicitor to ignore the clause then you could proceed with sale.



Well sure, but what buyer in their right mind would do such a thing, unless the property was an incredibly attractive deal?


----------



## mf1 (28 Sep 2006)

"So if the buyer instructed his solicitor to ignore the clause then you could proceed with sale."

It does not work like that. If the buyer is buying for cash, then once the solicitor points out all the problems, if the buyer wants to buy, then off he can go. If he subsequently wants to sell within the occupancy clause time frame, and no-one will  buy because of it, then so be it. He has no-one to blame......

However, as it is more likely that a buyer will be borrowing money to buy the house, the buyer does not dictate the rules. A buyers solicitor is expected to certify to the buyers lender that the title is in order and unless there is a confirmation from the Local Authority that they have lifted  the clause, the title is not in order. It is not a nod and a wink jobby. 

mf


----------



## Aimee (28 Sep 2006)

for the first time  this week I came across this clause in a planning permission :-

The use of the dwelling shall be restricted to its use as a dwelling by teh applicant and his heirs for a period of 7 years.  No development shall commence until an agreement embodying this provision has been entered into with the Planning Authority, pursuant to Section 47 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 2000.  _*This agreement shall be registered as a burden against the title of the land in the Land Registry or Registry of Deeds. *_ Evidence of this registration shall be submitted to the Planning Authority within 12 months of the commencement of development on site.

- and the Local Authority are indeed looking for this agreement to be legally put in place!!


----------



## construct_06 (28 Sep 2006)

*Re: Planning Permission occupancy clause: Are there penalties for selling inside 7 ye*

jeeez, Aimee, where r u based, i'm in clare and i dont think they have that yet. 

Thats really goin to sew everything up. 

No loopholes then!


----------



## mister mac (29 Sep 2006)

Where I am planning to build the house is not where I work,therefor I will be commuting and if after a year or two the arrangement isnt working out I just want to be sure I wont be facing some kind of penalty for breach of the planning conditions.


----------



## cappamj (29 Sep 2006)

the 7 year planning clause is very common in Co. Mayo and some planning applications  are only granted with a 10 year clause. My Son managed to get planning in rural area but has to live in house for 7 years. He checked with solicitor about the situation if he wants to sell in a few years the answer is buyers would have problems getting a mortgage for house with that type of clause.


----------



## mister mac (30 Sep 2006)

Bit of a mixed bag of responses there,has anyone found themselves in the same situation?


----------



## Aimee (2 Oct 2006)

*Re: Planning Permission occupancy clause: Are there penalties for selling inside 7 ye*



construct_06 said:


> jeeez, Aimee, where r u based, i'm in clare and i dont think they have that yet.
> 
> Thats really goin to sew everything up.
> 
> No loopholes then!


 

That was in a planning permission issued by Waterford County Council dated 2005!


----------



## mister mac (2 Oct 2006)

Based in Longford.Its sewn everything up as regards building to sell(for a profit) Its only in a few years since it came in but i think its creeping in to all other counties.
7 years is a bit steep though.


----------



## polo1 (2 Oct 2006)

Have the same myself in Dublin....... Took over 5 yrs to get PP and now we have to live their for min 7yrs.... TG we intend too in any case...


----------



## polaris (2 Oct 2006)

When we were building we got PP with a 5 year occupancy clause. The 1st thing our bank wanted was a letter from the council stating that they would waive this clause in the event of us defaulting on the mortgage. The council issued this no problem.

So stop making the repayments and the house can be sold legally!!


----------



## L0llip0p (20 Dec 2013)

The legality and enforcements surrounding these occupancy clauses seems to shrouded in mystery.

For example, say I have a lump of cash (lotto) and I want to buy a house that has a 10 year occupancy clause but owner has occupied it for 6 so 4 left on the clock but they want to sell for various reasons and county council won't waive remaining years.

If I don't need a loan, then presumably I could buy the house but what are the implications thereafter?

a) would council chase seller to fine them for breach of planning condition? If so, is that realistic? Has that ever happened?

b) would they pursue the buyer to fine them, though the buyer did take out the planning so I can't see how they are liable

c) finally, it would seem that there has yet to be a contest in the high court between a county council and a houseowner of breach of an occupancy clause that has resulted in much. From what I've read from reports from law society, there are huge question marks over how constitutional some of these planning conditions are. 

PS I haven't won the lotto but I can dream.... but it would good to know about this as naturally its a consistent problem for sellers and buyers across the country.


----------



## ajapale (20 Dec 2013)

Note the last post on this thread was over seven years ago! 02-10-2006, 04:05 PM


----------



## L0llip0p (20 Dec 2013)

Good point.

Yet the same lack of clarity remains.
And the problem is probably worse now than ever before

No harm in reigniting a relevant topic surely?


----------



## L0llip0p (14 Jan 2014)

I realise its an old thread but it's still the same problem in 2006 and it is in 2014.

Does anyone know what the implications are for either a seller or buyer where a house is sold that would still have time left on the original occupancy clause condition? Despite the council taken a dim view to this, is it ever likely they would pursue either and do anything drastic??

For example, say I have a lump of cash (lotto) and I want to buy a house that has a 10 year occupancy clause but owner has occupied it for 6 so 4 left on the clock but they want to sell for various reasons and county council won't waive remaining years.

If I don't need a loan, then presumably I could buy the house but what are the implications thereafter?

a) would council chase seller to fine them for breach of planning condition? If so, is that realistic? Has that ever happened?

b) would they pursue the buyer to fine them, though the buyer did not take out the planning so I can't see how they are liable

c) finally, it would seem that there has yet to be a contest in the high court between a county council and a houseowner of breach of an occupancy clause that has resulted in much. From what I've read from reports from law society, there are huge question marks over how constitutional some of these planning conditions are.


Seeing as we're a country full of ribbon development, surely houses have changed hands with such conditions outstanding? Just wondered, if my suspicion that little or nothing would happen as a result is correct?


----------

