PP: Can "local needs" be bypassed?

W

Wilson10

Guest
My brother has recently returned from the US after 22 years and is living in rented accomodation.

He wants to build close to our sister who recently moved to Co Meath where local needs apply.

I told him he wont get permission but he tells me he has it sussed.

He has hatched a plan with a local landowner whereby the man's son who lives in Dublin and has no wish to return will apply for full planning permission on his dad's land. Assuming he gets permission the brother buys the land and builds the house. If anyone asks he is renting from the farmers son. His solicitor has told him that as he doesn't need to apply for a mortgage he should get away with it.

I tell him he's mad, that he'll get caught out somehow and the plan will unravel but he just laughs and says what can they do, theres no law against it, rules were made to be broken.

Any views.
 
I very much doubt that he will be caught - if he is caught, he will be very unlucky indeed. Planning Authorities do not seem to enforce this law at all, instead relying on solicitors to do so indirectly. I refuse to act in these transactions, but I am aware that many solicitors perceive no difficulty whatever in them. Basically, this rule is flouted all the time; Welcome back to Ireland brother......we missed ya
 
Out of interest: is this scheme against the law? if so what is the leglislation governing the situation?
aj
 
Some Councils will ask for something along these lines

Before development commences the applicant shall submit to the planning authority, confirmation of the first occupation of the dwelling and the proposed date of such occupation for the purposes of Registration with the Land Registry Office. The applicant will be responsible for any costs relating to registration and associated inspection.

I'm assuming therefore that there will be a note on the title deeds. No problem if he doesn't sell within the x number of years but a potential buyer seeing that on the deeds may be concerned.

Also the farmer's son will have to complete that declaration. It's fraud and any fraund could end up with the National Bureau for Fraud Investigation, however unlikely that may seem.

 
I thought the EU ruled that this was illegal because it prevented the free movement of people within the EU?
 
PP is judged soley on the suitability of the building, not on who is proposing to live there or who is applying for the PP.

Reasons include:

1. Buildings generally last longer than people.
2. At PP stage, you cant say how long someone is going to live in a building - could sell up shortly after built due to change in circumstances or even personal choice.

All this means that no matter who applies for the PP, it will be judged on the merit of the proposed development and whether it is in accordance with the Local Authority Development Plan for the area.
 
PP is judged soley on the suitability of the building, not on who is proposing to live there or who is applying for the PP.

Reasons include:

1. Buildings generally last longer than people.
2. At PP stage, you cant say how long someone is going to live in a building - could sell up shortly after built due to change in circumstances or even personal choice.

All this means that no matter who applies for the PP, it will be judged on the merit of the proposed development and whether it is in accordance with the Local Authority Development Plan for the area.


Perhaps you should apply for planning in an area you are not from...Its Ireland where only developers get what they want.
 

can you explain this post please? local needs do apply in certain counties where planning permission does in part rely on the suitability of the person applying for the planning permission (whether or not this is ethical is another issue).
 
Last edited:
i doubt it... me and bubby to be are building a house on his home land, my parents wanted to move closer to us as we have no other family about. they were told i would have to be living in the area for at least 10 years in order for them to have a chance
 
Thanks for all the input. I dont think anything I've read is going to put the brother off having a go.
Deesmith, your problem is you're honest, trying to do it by the book.
Hopefully Charlie Mcreevy will get his way, however reluctant he may be, going against his own crowd on behalf of the EU and make it easier for all of us to build where we want.
 
can you explain this post please? local needs do apply in certain counties where planning permission does in part rely on the suitability of the person applying for the planning permission (whether or not this is ethical is another issue).
Click to expand...

Local need, where it exists, should be defined in the LA Development Plan. By law it cannot be person specific e.g. someone is from a particular area, as this conflicts with both equality and planning legislation. Though it can be job specific e.g. an area has enough land for 10 viable farms, there are only 8 farmhouses, so PP for 2 additional farmhouses can be given so that all the farms are sustainable. Another example would be, the LA wants to develop tourism in an area, therefore it will give PP for e.g. 10 holiday homes plus 2 regular homes to provide housing for the people who maintain the holiday homes.

There are a number of LA who have adopted "locals only" stances in recent years for certain types of PP. But this is illegal and will get overturned on appeal to An Bord Pleanala. I once gave some advice to a relative who was building a house in one of these areas that the best thing that could happen to him was to have PP rejected solely because he does not live there - guaranteed win on appeal.
 
Our planning permission prevents us from selling our house for three years from the date of the practical completion cert. We are in Carlow.
 
csirl said:
There are a number of LA who have adopted "locals only" stances in recent years for certain types of PP. But this is illegal and will get overturned on appeal to An Bord Pleanala..
Click to expand...

Are there actual examples of this happening?
 
Csirl, here's a recent refusal by Carlow:

1. Taken in conjunction with existing and permitted development along this roadside, the proposed development would contribute to an excessive density of development in a rural area lacking in certain public services, would lead to demands for the uneconomic provision of public services in the area and would militate against the preservation of the area’s rural environment. The site is outside any designated settlement or town, where it is the policy of the Planning Authority that residential development be restricted to the current housing needs of agriculture, other restricted categories of person, and to those with a functional need to live in the area, while protecting the area from over development arising from the random development of such housing. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and development of this rural area.

I can appreciate the first bit (though it's arguable), are you saying that the second part is grounds to lodge an appeal? (actually its too late now but I'm interested)
 
This refusal doesnt appear to be locals only - e.g. the housing needs of agricultures could, in theory, allow an emigrant worker who works on farms to get PP. Those with a functional need to live in the area dont necessarily have to be currently living in the area or originally from the area.
 
part of the local needs stance undertaken by councils does make provision for workers within the area, this is part of the definition of "local needs", it is still person specific. The question still remains, has an appeal been successful where the person applying for permission does not qualify under the local needs banner (ie. do not have a specific functional need)? how do you conclude that a refusal due to local needs is "guaranteed win on appeal".
 
I am aware of a case currently before an bord pleanala where the grounds of the appeal, are based on the illegality of the "local housing need provisions", of the local development plan.

I'm not so sure that the outcome of this appeal is as cut and dry as some other contributors are suggesting but its certainly a strong case.
 
One thing the OP should also bear in mind is that some authorities are placing a legally binding moratorium on any future development on the landholding as a planning condition instead of refusing the permission with the local needs clause. This condition moves with the land not the owner. I've seen several plans like the OPs fall through when the farmer's son realises this is the only site he's gonna get regardless of who it goes to.

However, if the guy selling the site can get it without his name being part of the planning conditions, there's no legal reason why the OP can't buy it and build it. If not the only issue is if the house is being sold and again, its only if the buyer's solicitor or their mortgage lender takes exception to the fact the house has not adhered to planning.

Aside from that the only risk is that a vendor can bale out of a sale even with a deposit down since the item for sale is strictly illegal. The OP should also bear in the mind though that the local authority will probably not grant retention for the house or permission for any other developments on it to his brother, until such time as the original violation is resolved.

Nothing a friendly councillor couldn't sort out though.
 

Importer, I would be grateful if you would keep us updated as to the outcome of this case (or the case number). Personally, I feel the local needs issue contravenes human rights let alone fairness and encourages dishonesty and the "who you know" route.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register