Planning Permission Need to prove ties to area,can I buy a site from my first Cousin?

[ecoangel]

My girlfriend has a mortgage on a 3 bed semi in an estate and we have 3 kids together and are getting married next year. My cousin has offered to sell me a site in the country but the planning restrictions are awkward because the county council have told me that i need to prove my ties to the area to get planning permission to build.
Does my cousin need to apply for the pp himself and sell me the site with planning? Or should we take a gamble with a solicitor to put our case forward for PP after we buy the field????
My father was born there but he died 20 years ago, and my first cousin is the next closest relative i have in the area, my sister lives a mile away, my second cousin and two other first cousins have houses in the area.

Thanks in advance,
G

 

[mummol]

Re: PlanningPermission Need to prove ties to area, can I buy a site from my first Cou

It completely depends on your councils county development plan. TBH it sounds tenious at best.

It took us 2 years to get pp. I was from the area. My dad was born in the area. Dh works in the area. Kids were going to go to school in the area. We got letters proving all this including club memberships.

We weren't really local needs as we already had a house. (which we sold in order to get planning). We got there eventually.

You don't buy sites straight out you buy them subject to pp. A small deposit and the land owners permission to apply for pp are all we needed. Once planning was granted we went ahead and got the site transferred into our names.

The idea of your cousin applying won't work if you will need to borrow to build. The planning has to be in your name in terms of applying for mortage.

 

[csirl]

Re: PlanningPermission Need to prove ties to area, can I buy a site from my first Cou

the county council have told me that i need to prove my ties to the area to get planning permission to build.

Ties to the area is that you are working etc. in the area & the work you do has a positive impact on the area and it is necessary for you to live near your work. It is not about being originally from the area or having relatives in the area.

E.g. A German born doctor who is opening a much needed doctors surgery in the area will get P.P., but someone who is born in the area, but works in a different town will not.

 

[galwegian44]

Re: PlanningPermission Need to prove ties to area, can I buy a site from my first Cou

Does anyone else think that this "rule", as it surely cannot be a legal requirement, is discrimanatory? I'm amazed that someone hasn't challenged it to date as it blatantly bludgeons people's rights.

I'm aware of the basis for it and I do believe that it has the right intentions but I don't believe that the councils should be trying to manipulate the rules to determine who lives where, especially as I've seen it abused locally in my area where it also helps to have "connections" as well as "ties".

As far as I can see the decision making on this requirement provides the relevant people in the council with a lot of power because of the discretionary nature of the decision making process, and this is not necessarily a good thing.

Good luck with your planning application.

Ties to the area is that you are working etc. in the area & the work you do has a positive impact on the area and it is necessary for you to live near your work. It is not about being originally from the area or having relatives in the area.

E.g. A German born doctor who is opening a much needed doctors surgery in the area will get P.P., but someone who is born in the area, but works in a different town will not.

 

[mf1]

Re: Planning Permission Need to prove ties to area,can I buy a site from my first Cou

"Does anyone else think that this "rule", as it surely cannot be a legal requirement, is discrimanatory? I'm amazed that someone hasn't challenged it to date as it blatantly bludgeons people's rights."

Do you have a different solution/plan to deal with "free for all" development?

mf

 

[Askar]

Re: Planning Permission Need to prove ties to area,can I buy a site from my first Cou

"

Do you have a different solution/plan to deal with "free for all" development?

mf

Yes. Current system is too incentivised towards corrupt practices imo. Current system is also too arbitrary. Reduce restrictions and charge actual cost for connections etc. Introduce a property tax which reflects added cost of standalone and second houses.

 

[csirl]

Re: Planning Permission Need to prove ties to area,can I buy a site from my first Cou

"Does anyone else think that this "rule", as it surely cannot be a legal requirement, is discrimanatory? I'm amazed that someone hasn't challenged it to date as it blatantly bludgeons people's rights."

I personally think that this type of rule is not in the spirit of planning legislation. The thrust of planning legislation is that the structure being built is appropriate for the particular area and it should not matter who is living in it. One thing to remember is that buildings generally last longer than people and planning laws cannot prevent someone who has obtained PP for something from immediately selling it, once built, to someone who may not conform with these requirements. I've always thought that they are ripe for a challenge.

Anyway, a challenge would not help the OP as if the rule was abolished, it would not be replaced by a free for all situation.

 

[mf1]

Re: Planning Permission Need to prove ties to area,can I buy a site from my first Cou

"and planning laws cannot prevent someone who has obtained PP for something from immediately selling it, once built, to someone who may not conform with these requirements."

I don't think that that is correct. If there is a time line restriction in the original planning permission that will endure for the full length of the time line and a lender will not be willing to lend if the planning is not in order.

mf

 

[rmdt]

Re: Planning Permission Need to prove ties to area,can I buy a site from my first Cou

"and planning laws cannot prevent someone who has obtained PP for something from immediately selling it, once built, to someone who may not conform with these requirements."

Planners can prevent someone from selling on a house immediatley after building it. It can often be included as a condition of the grant of permission that a house must be occupied for a set period of time (eg 5 years) by the person receiving permission as there primary family residence. A legal contract between the planning authority and the applicant is usually signed. The only reason why the house can be sold on sooner is if the mortgage provider takes the house because of outstanding payments and sells it (there is a clause in the contract to allow this, should the need arise).

 

[mummol]

Re: Planning Permission Need to prove ties to area,can I buy a site from my first Cou

In one of our conditions. We cannot sell our house for 10 years.

I think exceptions are made in cases of financial difficulties or changes in circumstances (marriage breakup) but its pretty rare and tbh I hope never to test it.

The main way CCs keep people in line is a house that is having a mortage applied has to have certificates of compliance applied before a bank will allow a mortage. (though I'm open to correction). We're building 5 months plus and yet to have a co co employee come out to check all is aok and compliant.

I agree the local needs issue is open to corruption. A local councellor levied very hard on our behalf. There were no brown envelopes but we really should not have gotten planning. The main drift of our arguement was that dad has a heart condition (true - I drove him to hospital while he had his first heart attack) and we wanted to be nearer in case of emergency and thats why the councellor worked so hard on our behalf.

The local needs issue has been deemed illegal and has gone to Europe for review but its quiet possibly years before any substantial change will be made.

 

[galwegian44]

Re: Planning Permission Need to prove ties to area,can I buy a site from my first Cou

mf1 - "free for all" development will not be encouraged or dissuaded by this particular rule. If there is a good reason for not granting PP then that's fine but it shouldn't discriminate between a local and a non-local person in my opinion.

I'm all in favour of making the rules more stringent in relation to ad-hoc building in the countryside, but the rules should apply to everyone.

All the best.

Do you have a different solution/plan to deal with "free for all" development?

mf

 

[galwegian44]

Re: Planning Permission Need to prove ties to area,can I buy a site from my first Cou

The conditions make this "rule" even more farcical in my opinion as it can put unreasonable restrictions on people who find that their circumstances have changed. It's difficult (and stressful) enough to navigate through a marriage breakup or a career move without having to convince your local CC to break the condition and ALLOW you to sell your own property. Even without the stressful events a person should be allowed to manage this without interference from the CC.

It's unfortunate that you had to lobby for this mummol but I'm delighted that you are building and I hope your Dad gets to enjoy the benefit of your local company for many years to come.

I didn't realise that this had gone to Europe (about time) but hopefully it's days are numbered.

Good luck.

I agree the local needs issue is open to corruption. A local councellor levied very hard on our behalf. There were no brown envelopes but we really should not have gotten planning. The main drift of our arguement was that dad has a heart condition (true - I drove him to hospital while he had his first heart attack) and we wanted to be nearer in case of emergency and thats why the councellor worked so hard on our behalf.

The local needs issue has been deemed illegal and has gone to Europe for review but its quiet possibly years before any substantial change will be made.

 

[csirl]

Re: Planning Permission Need to prove ties to area,can I buy a site from my first Cou

Planners can prevent someone from selling on a house immediatley after building it. It can often be included as a condition of the grant of permission that a house must be occupied for a set period of time (eg 5 years) by the person receiving permission as there primary family residence. A legal contract between the planning authority and the applicant is usually signed. The only reason why the house can be sold on sooner is if the mortgage provider takes the house because of outstanding payments and sells it (there is a clause in the contract to allow this, should the need arise).

This may be common practice, but I'm not sure that its provided for under planning legislation. May be open to challenge.

 

[sydthebeat]

Re: Planning Permission Need to prove ties to area,can I buy a site from my first Cou

mf1 - "free for all" development will not be encouraged or dissuaded by this particular rule. If there is a good reason for not granting PP then that's fine but it shouldn't discriminate between a local and a non-local person in my opinion.

I'm all in favour of making the rules more stringent in relation to ad-hoc building in the countryside, but the rules should apply to everyone.

All the best.

of course it should.

rural housing is a finite resource and should be retained specifically for those who have a genuine need to live in a particular area, be it because of a long standing affiliation with an area, a requirement to work in the rural area, or because your a son or daughter of the landowner / farmer.

it simply is governmental policy to refuse rural housing, unless a genuine need is shown, because our water sources are becoming polluted, our rural landscape is becoming pillaged, necessary infrastructure is stretched to capacity, infrastructure costs rocket in rural situations, socio-economical costs rocket in rural situations etc. Therefore it should be kept to a minimum.

It hasnt been deemed illegal anywhere. It has gone to europe for clarification, brough by a private individual..... but many european countries have the same restrictions...

have a read of this:
[broken link removed]

 

[galwegian44]

Re: Planning Permission Need to prove ties to area,can I buy a site from my first Cou

Thanks for the link Syd, it's an interesting article.

The whole process is artificially controlled and being abused on a regular basis because of this, not least (as the article suggests) because of the differing opinions over national policy, l;ocal policy and even between different councillors in the same area. That's why we have lobbying of councillors, decisions based on personal opinions rather than rules,non-local people beating the system (I know of a doctor who was allowed build near me based on his intention to open a local practice; he is still working in his old practice in the city nearby but living near the coastline), local people not availing of the recent surge in land values because there are no local people to buy the site (2 sites near me have been on the market at reasonable prices for 2+ years, no locals are interested and repeated offers by non-locals have been turned down because of this undemocratic "rule".

I'm all for controlling rural new-build (we have really made a mess of this in this country) but this is not the way to do it.

it simply is governmental policy to refuse rural housing, unless a genuine need is shown, because our water sources are becoming polluted, our rural landscape is becoming pillaged, necessary infrastructure is stretched to capacity, infrastructure costs rocket in rural situations, socio-economical costs rocket in rural situations etc. Therefore it should be kept to a minimum.

You could make the same argument above (in bold) for urban housing but rural purchasers are not restricted from entering that market.

Amazingly we also have strategies in this country that run in parallel with this "rule" to encourage urban dwellers to settle in rural communities in order to sustain local communities that are dwindling away. So non-locals may be discriminated against in some rural areas but grant-aided to settle in other rural areas (such as Leitrim or other west of Ireland counties).

I'm in favour of a lot of the objectives (rural sustainment, affordable local housing, protection of rural assets, infrastructure planning etc) and would fully support stricter overall planning policies; however discriminating between locals and non-locals (and the tenuous conditions attached) is not the way forward in my opinion.

All the best.

 

[galwegian44]

Re: Planning Permission Need to prove ties to area,can I buy a site from my first Cou

This discussion made me think about a story I read some years ago that says a lot about our modern lifestyles, hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

The Fisherman and the Banker
An American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellow fin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.

The Mexican replied, “only a little while.”

The American then asked why didn’t he stay out longer and catch more fish?

The Mexican said he had enough to support his family’s immediate needs.
The American then asked, “but what do you do with the rest of your time?”

The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siestas with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine, and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life.”

The American scoffed, “I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat, you could buy several boats, eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing, and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually New York City, where you will run your expanding enterprise.”

The Mexican fisherman asked, “But, how long will this all take?”
To which the American replied, “15 - 20 years.”
“But what then?” Asked the Mexican.

The American laughed and said, “That’s the best part. When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions!”

“Millions–then what?”

The American said, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siestas with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos.”

 

[sydthebeat]

Re: Planning Permission Need to prove ties to area,can I buy a site from my first Cou

Thanks for the link Syd, it's an interesting article.

The whole process is artificially controlled and being abused on a regular basis because of this, not least (as the article suggests) because of the differing opinions over national policy, l;ocal policy and even between different councillors in the same area. That's why we have lobbying of councillors, decisions based on personal opinions rather than rules,non-local people beating the system (I know of a doctor who was allowed build near me based on his intention to open a local practice; he is still working in his old practice in the city nearby but living near the coastline), local people not availing of the recent surge in land values because there are no local people to buy the site (2 sites near me have been on the market at reasonable prices for 2+ years, no locals are interested and repeated offers by non-locals have been turned down because of this undemocratic "rule".

I'm all for controlling rural new-build (we have really made a mess of this in this country) but this is not the way to do it.



You could make the same argument above (in bold) for urban housing but rural purchasers are not restricted from entering that market.

Amazingly we also have strategies in this country that run in parallel with this "rule" to encourage urban dwellers to settle in rural communities in order to sustain local communities that are dwindling away. So non-locals may be discriminated against in some rural areas but grant-aided to settle in other rural areas (such as Leitrim or other west of Ireland counties).

I'm in favour of a lot of the objectives (rural sustainment, affordable local housing, protection of rural assets, infrastructure planning etc) and would fully support stricter overall planning policies; however discriminating between locals and non-locals (and the tenuous conditions attached) is not the way forward in my opinion.

All the best.

we seem to have the same opinions galwegian...... we support the principles of the guidelines, but the practise of them is vastly flawed. I had an application refused yesterday where the son of the landowner applied on family land beside his parents house and was refused because of 'ribbon development' and proliferation of septic tanks...... of course the planner didnt comment that at least 50% of the adjoining dwellings were granted to applicants who had a very tenuious affilation with the area...

I had experience of the system before the guidelines, and i can say for certainty that the system is better now with them. At least as agents we can give a prospective applicant a fairly accurate opinion on how the application will be viewed by a planner... previously it was pot-luck....

 

[galwegian44]

Re: Planning Permission Need to prove ties to area,can I buy a site from my first Cou

This has to be a frustration for both you and the applicant as the rules are not imposed in a consistent manner. I see this with the local V non-local rule as there are exceptions that cause anger, not just frustration. In my opinion it is discrimanatory and open to serious abuse.

However, if your client was refused PP beside the family home because of stricter planning LAWS addressing all the topics we have touched upon (environmental issues, sustainable development etc) AND this law applied to everyone then I think it would be more equitable. Strong central planning focusing on the structured development of villages and communities rather than "ribbon developments" are the way forward in my opinion.....with the option to purchase open to everyone

As an agent you would certainly have more practical experience of what is happening (I'm only quoting my own limited experiences in my particular area) and I'm happy to hear that it has improved; nevertheless there is room for more improvement.

All the best.

we seem to have the same opinions galwegian...... we support the principles of the guidelines, but the practise of them is vastly flawed. I had an application refused yesterday where the son of the landowner applied on family land beside his parents house and was refused because of 'ribbon development' and proliferation of septic tanks...... of course the planner didnt comment that at least 50% of the adjoining dwellings were granted to applicants who had a very tenuious affilation with the area...

I had experience of the system before the guidelines, and i can say for certainty that the system is better now with them. At least as agents we can give a prospective applicant a fairly accurate opinion on how the application will be viewed by a planner... previously it was pot-luck....