LPT exemption

Status
Not open for further replies.
You do know that shutting off the water and electricity is not sufficient for a dwelling to be considered uninhabitable, right? There's a reason photographic or other evidence is required!
 
For a decade??? Right?

"...almost certainly..."
Now you starting to get it. So in 10 years of no heat, no occupation there is more to it than just switching on the water and power.

Since you seem to feel so strongly that planning is not required, how about you show me how you remove a property from the derelict register without planning?
 
Now you starting to get it. So in 10 years of no heat, no occupation there is more to it than just switching on the water and power.

Since you seem to feel so strongly that planning is not required, how about you show me how you remove a property from the derelict register without planning?
Give over. I have made no such claim.

I stand by my observation that this claim by you is manifestly incorrect.
But be warned you will almost certainly require full planning permission to bring it back into use later, and that will entail having to bring it up to current building regs.
Your problem, frankly.
 
So why can't you show me how you remove a property from the derelict register without obtaining planning?
Because it's not up to me to justify your "... almost certainly... " remark.

Can you be even reasonably sure that the Derelict Sites Register is even applicable here? The OP has made no reference to any of the following factors being present.

The Derelict Sites Act defines a derelict site as any land that “detracts, or is likely to detract, to a material degree from the amenity, character or appearance of land in the neighbourhood of the land in question because of”:

  • Structures which are in a ruinous, derelict or dangerous condition, or
  • The neglected, unsightly or objectionable condition of the land or of structures on it, or
  • The presence, deposit or collection of litter, rubbish, debris or waste
 
Last edited:
Can you be even reasonably sure that the Derelict Sites Register is even applicable here?
Sorry, derelict sites is different. I should have stuck to uninhabitable, as a property doesn't have to qualify as derelict to be considered uninhabitable. Where we're talking about here is a property that Revenue have accepted as uninhabitable.

The Revenue Tax and Duty manual is quite clear that lack of utilities or heating are not sufficient for a property to be considered uninhabitable.

A property may be unoccupied for a number of years and be in need of modernisation; for example, where the owner lives in a nursing home. In spite of the lack of heating resulting in dampness, mould and mildew, such properties are typically determined by Revenue to be habitable.
It may be argued that a property is uninhabitable because it doesn’t have a modern heating system (gas, oil, radiators). Revenue’s view is that the type of heating, or, indeed, the absence of heating, does not in itself make a property uninhabitable. Properties may have alternative heating such as back boilers, open fires, electrical or storage heaters.
The absence of utilities such as water or electricity or sanitary facilities does not necessarily mean that a residential property can be regarded as uninhabitable.
However, further along the continuum, a property may be so affected by damp that it is rendered uninhabitable where, for example, the extent of the damp or water ingress has rendered the property structurally unsafe due to the rotting away of supporting beams/rafters. At the other end of the continuum, a property may be rundown and neglected because it has been abandoned or deserted to the extent that it is derelict and falling into ruins. A property’s roof may be absent or falling in and some of its internal rooms may be exposed to the elements and, in such circumstances, would be uninhabitable.

So it's reasonable to assume that a property accepted as uninhabitable will require a little more than a tidy up and a lick of paint to bring back into use. In the past people have removed roofs to qualify as uninhabitable. It's difficult to come back from that kind of state fully within exempted development particularly with the risk of triggering Part L requirements where the property would have to be brought up to a B2 BER.

There are talks about expanding the exempted development rules to align with the Vacancy, Dereliction and Regeneration Bill to make it less onerous to bring uninhabitable properties back into use. Little detail has been shared in that regard yet other than to propose the details be at the ministers discretion, subject to a Section 5 declaration and follow the Town Centre First process.

Oh, and in case a client ever asks you, getting off the Revenue uninhabitable property register just requires a declaration :) The tricky bit happens between getting on it and getting the place fit for use again.
 
Sorry, derelict sites is different. I should have stuck to uninhabitable, as a property doesn't have to qualify as derelict to be considered uninhabitable.
Fair enough.
Where we're talking about here is a property that Revenue have accepted as uninhabitable.
No we're not. You're mixing up what the OP said and what another poster said.

The Revenue Tax and Duty manual is quite clear that lack of utilities or heating are not sufficient for a property to be considered uninhabitable.
We already knew that.

So it's reasonable to assume that a property accepted as uninhabitable will require a little more than a tidy up and a lick of paint to bring back into use.
Ditto.
In the past people have removed roofs to qualify as uninhabitable. It's difficult to come back from that kind of state fully within exempted development particularly with the risk of triggering Part L requirements where the property would have to be brought up to a B2 BER.
Irrelevant to this discussion. The OP made no mention of a missing roof.

There are talks about expanding the exempted development rules to align with the Vacancy, Dereliction and Regeneration Bill to make it less onerous to bring uninhabitable properties back into use. Little detail has been shared in that regard yet other than to propose the details be at the ministers discretion, subject to a Section 5 declaration and follow the Town Centre First process.
Irrelevant to this discussion.
Oh, and in case a client ever asks you, getting off the Revenue uninhabitable property register just requires a declaration :) The tricky bit happens between getting on it and getting the place fit for use again.
Irrelevant to this discussion.

(Also, where is this Revenue uninhabitable property register that you speak of?)
 
No we're not. You're mixing up what the OP said and what another poster said.
No I'm not. I'm responding to the post you quoted which clearly deals with the requirement to supply Revenue with evidence to support a claim of a property being uninhabitable:

Note that if you declare a property as uninhabitable to get out of paying, you will need to supply documentary evidence of same (photos, surveyor's report). It then doesn't need an exemption as derelict properties are not subject to LPT.

Irrelevant to this discussion. The OP made no mention of a missing roof.
It's very relevant, it shows the level of deterioration required to the fabric of the building in order to qualify it as uninhabitable.

Irrelevant to this discussion.
Again this is relevant, if planning permission was not required to bring many uninhabitable properties back into use there would be no need to expand the options available under exempted development.
 
No I'm not. I'm responding to the post you quoted which clearly deals with the requirement to supply Revenue with evidence to support a claim of a property being uninhabitable:

It's very relevant, it shows the level of deterioration required to the fabric of the building in order to qualify it as uninhabitable.

Again this is relevant, if planning permission was not required to bring many uninhabitable properties back into use there would be no need to expand the options available under exempted development.
I suspect you're putting too much store on a Revenue Tax and Duty Manual. Revenue have no statutory or other function relating to planning, and certainly not in determining whether or not a project involving the restoration of a currently uninhabited property requires planning permission. That's why arguments on the substantive issue here that are based on the contents of a Revenue Tax and Duty Manual will be usually irrelevant to the discussion.


No I'm not. I'm responding to the post you quoted which clearly deals with the requirement to supply Revenue with evidence to support a claim of a property being uninhabitable:
I haven't even argued with you on that point, as it's a marginal issue at best. As someone else early in this thread noted, it may be cheaper for the OP to pay 10 years' LPT than to get an engineer's report certifying uninhabitable status.
 
Last edited:
I suspect you're putting too much store on a Revenue Tax and Duty Manual. Revenue have no statutory or other function relating to planning, and certainly not in determining whether or not a project involving the restoration of a currently uninhabited property requires planning permission.
Perhaps have another read over what I said. For Revenue to accept a property as uninhabitable, it would need to be in quite a bad way. Renovating a house in such a condition to bring it back into use is very likely to involve a change in character or appearance, and so require planning. Touch more than 25% of the envelope (even internal dry-lining) and Part L requirements come into play where you must reach a minimum of BER B2.

I haven't even argued with you on that point, as it's a marginal issue at best. As someone else early in this thread noted, it may be cheaper for the OP to pay 10 years' LPT than to get an engineer's report certifying uninhabitable status.
I'd also agree with paying the LPT as the best route. Going down qualifying it as uninhabitable opens a can of worms.
 
Perhaps have another read over what I said. For Revenue to accept a property as uninhabitable, it would need to be in quite a bad way Renovating a house in such a condition to bring it back into use is very likely to involve a change in character or appearance, and so require planning.
Again (1) this is Revenue who have again no function in relation to planning (2) the OP's situation did not indicate that the property was in a particularly bad way.

Whether or not it falls within the definition of uninhabitable for LPT purposes will presumably be a matter for Revenue's LPT dept. The Tax & Duty Manual when read in its entirety gives a rather different impression of Revenue's approach than that indicated by your selective quotes, eg this part of section 3.2.3

What constitutes an uninhabitable property is not defined and must be determined based on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is therefore not possible to provide a definitive or exhaustive list of defects or deficiencies or a description of what makes a property uninhabitable. A property may have several serious defects, none of which, when considered in isolation, is sufficient to make the property uninhabitable. However, when these defects are considered as a whole, the property may be regarded as uninhabitable.

Your "almost certainly" claim remains unsubstantiated, as does
Renovating a house in such a condition to bring it back into use is very likely to involve a change in character or appearance, and so require planning.

and

Going down qualifying it as uninhabitable opens a can of worms.
 
Again (1) this is Revenue who have again no function in relation to planning (2) the OP's situation did not indicate that the property was in a particularly bad way.
Again, I didn't claim that they did, nor did I make any claim as to the condition of the OP's property. Perhaps try again.

I simply cautioned that a house that would be signed-off by Revenue as uninhabitable would almost certainly require planning permission to bring it back into use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top