# Question on planning permission



## car (24 May 2010)

Moved house about 5 years ago, we were aware there was planning permission granted for apartments to the rear of our house before we moved but as we looked at the plans we werent concerned.
A largish maintenance building/caretaker house was erected less then 3 feet from our back garden wall. Its been half built for about a year now with no sign of it being completed. 
The apartments are nearly all empty as well but thats an aside.

Anyway, this maintenance building wasnt on the original plans according to excellent meath county coucil website.  
I can see the planning permission for the original apartments without this building granted (I searched on address and developer for all docs relating to this development) and 
one other application amendment to the plans which includes the maintenance building with a status of REFUSED.


The questions: 
If the website is to be trusted, does this mean that the building then shouldnt have been built?
If it shouldnt have been what course do I have open to me to get it removed?

If Im missing something such as another planning permission application not showing on the council site search, which I doubt, and its actually ok for the building to have been erected, is it ok for the builder to leave it half built and if so back to the question of what can I do if anything to get it removed?

The developer is still around as he lives in one of the houses in the estate. ie, not gone bust and disappeared.


----------



## TheRed (24 May 2010)

You should write to the Director of Planning at the main Council office and say that you wish to make an Enforcement Complaint regardomg.... Your name and details will be kept confidential. 

If the building is uanuthorised then action can be taken whether or not it has been completed. Action has to be taken within seven years of the commencement of the unauthorised development and the enforcement process can be quite protracted, so probably best to get the process started. Provide the Council with as much information as possible, including application number for the apartments and the refused maintenance building to get the speediest outcome.


----------



## RKQ (24 May 2010)

I agree with TheRed.

If we assume their is planning permission for the maintenance building, then it has to be substancially completed within the life of the permission - 5 years, usually. 

I'd be surprised if no planning exists and the Developer intented to apply for Retention. (Then again maybe I wouldn't!)
Check the site / townsland for _all_ applications on that site. Print off copies of all Site Plans, if available.

Compare the half constructed maintenance building with the building in the refused application. Provide all planning permission reference numbers to Enforcement.


----------



## car (24 May 2010)

I mailed the planning dept of the council with relevant planning notes and addresses and they mailed back quite promptly to say they will investigate.  Pleasing.  What happens after that Im sure will be protracted.




> I'd be surprised if no planning exists and the Developer intented to apply for Retention. (Then again maybe I wouldn't!)


Im not sure what you mean by this, can you clarify?    

The building is definitely not in the original plans, we had called to the council offices and had purchased them (AFAIR I think it was something nominal like 20e to print them off) at the time we were going to purchasee house.  It is in the amended application but that was refused.  All searches for the address, the developer or area surrounds show no other applications so Im guessing thats all thats there.


----------



## RKQ (25 May 2010)

I'd be surprised if no planning exists and the Developer intented to apply for Retention. (Then again maybe I wouldn't!) 


car said:


> Im not sure what you mean by this, can you clarify?


 
Sorry Car but how can I clarify?
I mean that building a structure without planning permission is illegal. 
It is very risky. 

Of couse I have seen some strange things in my time, so maybe this Developer did build it without permission, or thought a subsequent revision to the refused application would be granted... then the recession hit and the application wasn't lodged, hence a half built maintence building.

No doubt Enforcement will get to the bottom of it.
I'm glad you got good advice here. I hope it all works out.


----------



## car (25 May 2010)

I should clarify my request for clarification. 

I was asking what was meant by "apply for retention" (Im not aufait with pp terms).  I'm guessing it means he built it without permission and then subsequently applys to keep it.

Thanks anyway for advice.   I'll update if anything comes of it.


----------



## RKQ (25 May 2010)

Yes Car, you are correct.
"Retention Permission" is when one applies for permission to retain an existing structure or to retain changes to an existing structure. 
Sorry for any confusion.

Hence it would be a risky for a Developer to erect a building illegally, without permission. The Council has the power to blacklist bad Developers - those with a history of non compliance etc.

Let us know how you get on.


----------



## amgd28 (25 May 2010)

I have a question - bought a house in 06 with a two-storey granny-flat/dormer attached. Planning granted for granny-flat in 99. there was a specific requirement that an interconnecting door between original house and granny flat be retained.
When I bough the house, the planning requirement was pointed out to me by the solicitor, and I noted that the interconnecting door was no longer present. I decided to leave well alone. 
Since then I am considering, both for future sales complications and for potentially letting house to the council, whether this stipulation in the original planning needs to be adhered to? As the original permission was 1999, am I in the clear in relation to the interconnecting door? If it is of any relevance, the granny-flat has it's own front door, is completely separate and is registered as an address with the council (own gas/electricity/bins etc)


----------



## onq (26 May 2010)

A granny flat is intended for use by a family member.

What you describe suggests that the applicant may not have complied with his conditions from the start, unless you find the connecting door was covered up.

All conditions of planning must be ahered to for you to achieve compliance.

At the moment you do not appear to have a separate dwelling to sell on in planning terms.

Without seeing the plans the granny flat may rely on the main house for access, private open space and drainage and be inextricably linked.

You should retain a competent building professional to advise you.

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                          as a defence or support - in and of itself -     should       legal        action    be      taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                          Real Life with rights to inspect and issue   reports    on     the         matters    at      hand.


----------



## amgd28 (26 May 2010)

There was originally an interconnecting door, but this was plastered over by the time I had purchased the property (in 06).
The "granny flat" is a 2-story dormer extension with own-door access. There is a shared front yard and segregated back yards, if it makes any difference. 
I'm not intending selling, the properties are currently on the council address list as 24 and 24a, indicating main house and annex/granny flat


----------



## RKQ (26 May 2010)

onq said:


> All conditions of planning must be ahered to for you to achieve compliance.
> 
> You should retain a competent building professional to advise you.


 
Agree 100%

It very black & white really, its right or its wrong - no grey area here. Either it complies or it doesn't.

If the door is blocked up then you have two separate dwellings - it is non compliant.
Your Solicitor pointed this out to you, but you decided to ignore this and inso-doing you have inherited the problem.

You will have to reinstate the door or apply for Retention. (The Council may not want two separate houses on your site)


----------



## amgd28 (26 May 2010)

Fair enough, will apply for retention so.
Just puzzled then as to whether the following has any relevance to my situation?



> Action has to be taken within seven years of the commencement of the unauthorised development and the enforcement process can be quite protracted



If the "unauthorised development" was the blocking up of the door does that mean that if this was more than 7 years ago, then there is no scope for enforcement?


----------



## tester1 (26 May 2010)

Hi 

Just a planning query also.... 
If you are found to have a building ie garage that does not comply can you agree to comply immediately and will this be allowed..... 
ie knock it and rebuild or can they make you demolish without any issue


----------



## RKQ (27 May 2010)

amgd28 said:


> If the "unauthorised development" was the blocking up of the door does that mean that if this was more than 7 years ago, then there is no scope for enforcement?


 
Good question. But You bought this house in 2006, four years ago. How can you prove the door was blocked up prior to 2006?
The only evidence you have is probably a letter from your Solicitor, dated 2006.
Would the previous owner supply you with a written affvidavit? (Accepting liability)

How could the Council have known the door was blocked up, in order for them to issue Enforcement proceedings?


----------



## onq (27 May 2010)

tester1 said:


> Hi
> 
> Just a planning query also....
> If you are found to have a building ie garage that does not comply can you agree to comply immediately and will this be allowed.....
> ie knock it and rebuild or can they make you demolish without any issue



You could try, but nothing is certain.

They could still issue enforcement proceedings against you.

However most Councils will not issue proceedings is the matter can be resolved through talking.

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                           as a defence or support - in and of itself -      should       legal        action    be      taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                           Real Life with rights to inspect and issue    reports    on     the         matters    at      hand.


----------

