Decommissioned Farmhouse?

@simon.d wrote:

…….. I’m looking to restore the farmhouse as my own home in the very near future.

You’ll need a planning permission to rebuild/restore the old house.
The condition you refer to is there to prevent 2 dwellings on the one site.

@Tayto wrote:

You’ll need a planning permission to rebuild/restore the old house.
The condition you refer to is there to prevent 2 dwellings on the one site.

The houses are quite a distance apart (i.e. 75m or so), would that still be considered the same site?

Would it be looked on like a greenfield site? The farmhouse itself is around 200 years old, made of clay of the lobby entry form and in very good condition.. It’d be a shame to let it rot… Do planners take into account the heritage value of old buildings when granting permissions?

The original application for the new house would give you the clues as to why this condition was added. The only (safe) way to overturn it is to make a new application.

The land was (is?) probably zoned for agricultural use. Normally an additional dwelling would not be permitted because of the agricultural zoning. It may have been proposed in the planning application to decommission the existing farmhouse then build a new dwelling. This would in effect represent a replacement of the farmhouse, rather than the construction of an additional house. The planners would permit a new house on that basis.

If the original farmhouse has historical or architectural value then the argument for it’s restoration could form the basis of a new application.

If your parents still live in the permitted house and are the landowners, then the new application should probably be made in their name. It should be clear in the application that the new dwelling is intended for the family.

I’ve said “probably” a lot. You should consider consulting an architect or planning consultant who can examine the planning history and documents etc. in detail and provide you with clear options.

@Tayto wrote:

The original application for the new house would give you the clues as to why this condition was added. The only (safe) way to overturn it is to make a new application.

Are there other (less safe) ways to overturn it? I just like to be aware of the other options if there are any…

@Tayto wrote:

If the original farmhouse has historical or architectural value then the argument for it’s restoration could form the basis of a new application.

If your parents still live in the permitted house and are the landowners, then the new application should probably be made in their name. It should be clear in the application that the new dwelling is intended for the family.

Thanks for all the help!

If I were in your position I would probably make the same arguments Tayto laid out; but wind the clock back14 years and then look at more of the costs of the Dick Roche style one off housing bonanza when allowed only in some local authorities prior to its nationwide blitzkreig of the mid naughties.

@simon.d wrote:

The houses are quite a distance apart (i.e. 75m or so), would that still be considered the same site?

Would it be looked on like a greenfield site? The farmhouse itself is around 200 years old, made of clay of the lobby entry form and in very good condition..

Sounds like a pleasant vernacular dwelling; little celebrated but clearly of local social interest.

@simon.d wrote:

It’d be a shame to let it rot… Do planners take into account the heritage value of old buildings when granting permissions?

Yip the planners at the time and with Dick Roche’s planning regime were very happy to let old buildings rot so that McMansions could replace them as the primary dwelling on the curtilage.

Just to be clear I hope you do get the restore the farmhouse and are very happy in it 😉

The best advice I can give you is that you seek professional advice from a qualified and registered architect in order that the exact circumstances at your parents’ site can be established. Check out http://www.riai.ie for architects in your area. It is likely that an initial site visit / assessment will cost very little if anything at all.

A lot has changed since the original planning application was made 15 years ago and the planning authority may now look favourably on the re-use and sensitive restoration of the old farmhouse. However issues such as frontage/safe vehicular access to the site, effluent treatment systems and wells, back land development/overlooking issues and local need housing criteria may come into play.

Here is a link to the County Kildare Development Plan 2011-2017 Housing Policy and if you read section 4.12.1 it gives some idea of the considerations of the Planning Authorities on this issue.

http://kildare.ie/CountyCouncil/Planning/DevelopmentPlans/PreparationoftheDraftCountyDevelopmentPlan2011-2017/DraftCountyDevelopmentPlan2011-2017/LinkToDocument,22016,en.pdf

@simon.d wrote:

Are there other (less safe) ways to overturn it? I just like to be aware of the other options if there are any…

Thanks for all the help!

Unless your name is Jesse James and you wear a Stetson you shouldn’t really consider rebuilding the house without permission like other cowboys would. If you do, expect a tap on the door from the local sheriff and to be served with an injunction or enforcement notice ordering the demolition of the unauthorised development. You could stall for time by applying for Retention but this is a huge gamble to take considering the time effort and money it would take to restore the house. A refusal would mean demolition. A grant would overturn the original planning condition.

Do some research :
1. Check the Development Plan Map for the current zoning of the land, and also look in the main document for current attitude to development / restoration in that zoning.
2. Ask to see the original Planning File (available for a small fee from the Local Authority) and in particular the Planners’s Report for an indication of how the decision and conditions were made.

This will give you a few more pointers as to whether it might be viable. If you feel it is, approach an Architect, preferably local.

Thanks again for all the replies… Very helpful so ye are!

@vca wrote:

A lot has changed since the original planning application was made 15 years ago and the planning authority may now look favourably on the re-use and sensitive restoration of the old farmhouse.

I’ve great plans to restore it very sensitively, and do as little as is needed to the original structure, and banish all the cement that has crept in over the last 40 yrs etc.. I’m also concerned with the idea that it might be listed once I highlight its existence to the council and the further planning issues that would bring up.. What sort of problems/benefits might that give me?

@Tayto wrote:

However issues such as frontage/safe vehicular access to the site, effluent treatment systems and wells, back land development/overlooking issues and local need housing criteria may come into play.

Access is fine I think, with a 1/2 mile lane leading up to the house off a very straight road and very secluded… Nearest house (aside from the parents which is also hidden from the site) is buffered by farm buildings and a couple of acres field.. I’ve also lived in the area for about 12 yrs.. Sewerage is what I’m most worried about, as I’m not sure if the site is up to sratch.. The parents have a septic tank which is accessible from the farmhouse.. Would it be possible to increase the capacity/standard of that one to appease this issue or would the farmhouse site be treated independently, needing it’s own tank? Does the fact there’s already a septic tank there have any bearing on the decision to install a second one?

Will the historical importance aspect induce the planner to give consessions on other aspects? i.e. allow a septic tank on a site that might be a bit below whats normally warranted?

@vca wrote:

Unless your name is Jesse James and you wear a Stetson you shouldn’t really consider rebuilding the house without permission like other cowboys would. If you do, expect a tap on the door from the local sheriff and to be served with an injunction or enforcement notice ordering the demolition of the unauthorised development. You could stall for time by applying for Retention but this is a huge gamble to take considering the time effort and money it would take to restore the house. A refusal would mean demolition. A grant would overturn the original planning condition.

I do fully intend to go down the planning route, as lots of money is gonna be thrown at this, but playing devils advocate here, can they force the demolition of an old building of such historical value? (it could even be applicable for monument status (300 yr +) as the farm was well established on the 1830’s OS maps, implying that the dwelling could be much older than 200 years) Also, could it be classed as an agricultural building seeing as it’s positioned on a working farm? i.e. I could be restoring the farmhouse to be a fancy chicken coop…Could that block demolition if it came to it? Does the agricultural aspect throw up any planning oppurtunities?

@simon.d wrote:

Thanks again for all the replies… Very helpful so ye are!

I’ve great plans to restore it very sensitively, and do as little as is needed to the original structure, and banish all the cement that has crept in over the last 40 yrs etc.. I’m also concerned with the idea that it might be listed once I highlight its existence to the council and the further planning issues that would bring up.. What sort of problems/benefits might that give me?

I do fully intend to go down the planning route, as lots of money is gonna be thrown at this, but playing devils advocate here, can they force the demolition of an old building of such historical value? (it could even be applicable for monument status (300 yr +) as the farm was well established on the 1830’s OS maps, implying that the dwelling could be much older than 200 years) Also, could it be classed as an agricultural building seeing as it’s positioned on a working farm? i.e. I could be restoring the farmhouse to be a fancy chicken coop…Could that block demolition if it came to it? Does the agricultural aspect throw up any planning oppurtunities?

You know now what might be a great idea- that would be to sneak in an ‘ol cooker an’ a fridge, on the quiet, like. Then an ‘ol wardrobe, a bed, a TV and an aul hoover.
Then what ye might do then like, just to be on the safe side, ye know, would be to let a few chickens loose inside, so as not to give the game away, like. Ye could grab an aul feather as well, stick it where the sun don’t shine and pretend you’re a duck.
They’d never catch on.:rolleyes:

@Tayto wrote:

You know now what might be a great idea- that would be to sneak in an ‘ol cooker an’ a fridge, on the quiet, like. Then an ‘ol wardrobe, a bed, a TV and an aul hoover.

The truth of it is I would most probably get away with it, as private access is needed to get near the site, or to even see it.. Also I can’t see the council ordering the demolition of a 200 year old cottage, especially one that was simply restored without any external bells on… However I don’t want to go down that route, which Is why I’m looking for advice here…

I massively value the history of the building, alongside it’s full complement of outbuildings, and I think any planning decision that would rule out the possibility of restoring it as a dwelling would be absolute bureacratic nonsense adding yet more losses to our vernacular heritage that have been habitually bulldozed over the years..

From the wording of the condition “Decommission”, it is implied that the use of the building as a habitable dwelling needs only to be decommissioned. There is nothing stopping you maintaining and or restoring the building provided the works are exempt from planning. However if you wish to once again commission the building for usage as a domestic dwelling you would need to apply for planning to rehabilitate previously decommissioned farmhouse. Not knowing the actual county or case I would image that the rehabilitation of the dwelling would also mean that the existing entrance and also the effluent facilities would need to be brought up to the relevant Development Plan standards.

@kieran0426 wrote:

From the wording of the condition “Decommission”, it is implied that the use of the building as a habitable dwelling needs only to be decommissioned. There is nothing stopping you maintaining and or restoring the building provided the works are exempt from planning. However if you wish to once again commission the building for usage as a domestic dwelling you would need to apply for planning to rehabilitate previously decommissioned farmhouse. Not knowing the actual county or case I would image that the rehabilitation of the dwelling would also mean that the existing entrance and also the effluent facilities would need to be brought up to the relevant Development Plan standards.

Thanks Kieran,
I was thinking along those lines myself.. i.e there’s nothing stopping me working on it, just living in it…

That would be my understanding but would need to see the exact wording of the condition to be sure.
From previous experience once a building is decomissioned or can be proven has been unused for a period of ten years the uses becomes “Vacant” and therefore planning permission is required for the building to be reinstated to is previous or possibly new use.

@simon.d wrote:

My parents bought an old farm with farmhouse about 14 years ago. On receipt of planning permission to build a new house on the land the planners stipulated the following condition:

“Conditions: The existing farmhouse structure shall be decommissioned and shall not henceforth be used for habitable purposes.

Reasons for conditions: In the interests of orderly development.”

I was wondering did anyone know how binding such conditions are and whether or not they expire, or what I can do to have this condition undone. I’m looking to restore the farmhouse as my own home in the very near future.

Well, it won’t be in the VERY near future.

You’ll need a permission and you may need to do a significant amount of rebuilding.

14 weeks for the planning permisison without an Appeal, eight months minimum with and Appeal plus four to six months of a build [mid range estimate] – could be a year away.

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

Well, it won’t be in the VERY near future.

You’ll need a permission and you may need to do a significant amount of rebuilding.

14 weeks for the planning permisison without an Appeal, eight months minimum with and Appeal plus four to six months of a build [mid range estimate] – could be a year away.

ONQ.

I’m no expert, but I’m assuming from my own reading, and some of the feedback here, that the repair and restoration can begin immediately seeing as the structure already exists, so long as the exterior works do not materially affect the external appearance of the structure …? Therefore without planning, I can do almost all the works necessary and that planning is only needed to have it reclassified as a dwelling? So I hope to be in there by late summer!

@simon.d wrote:

I’m no expert, but I’m assuming from my own reading, and some of the feedback here, that the repair and restoration can begin immediately seeing as the structure already exists, so long as the exterior works do not materially affect the external appearance of the structure …? Therefore without planning, I can do almost all the works necessary and that planning is only needed to have it reclassified as a dwelling? So I hope to be in there by late summer!

very risky to pump funds into a project where you are not guaranteed to be able to inhabit it when complete. Very risky indeed 😮

id seriously suggest a preplanning meeting. If its in kildare, good, as their planners are quite pragmatic in my experience.

a big issue is whether there is enough landholding between the two dwellings to cater for 2 dwellings… id suggest a min 1 1/2 acres, possible 2 acres.

as others have said, the reason the condition was included original was, most probably, to allow for a new farmhouse on this farmland. You will need to comply fully with kildare co cos stringent local needs requirements.

@henno wrote:

a big issue is whether there is enough landholding between the two dwellings to cater for 2 dwellings… id suggest a min 1 1/2 acres, possible 2 acres.

The edge of the farmhouse is about 100ft from the nearest edge of the parents house… With a dense row of very mature trees marking a ditch about halfway between them… So I’m not to sure…. They don’t seem to close… But who knows! Ideally I’d be able to tap into the parents septic tank, though I’m not sure if that’s a possibility.. Are two houses allowed to share the same septic tank (assuming it’s large enough)?

I (possibly naively) would have thought the primary issue here was the architectural heritage locked up in this lobby-entry mud farmhouse, that if left for the next few years will be beyond salvation.. One recent find in it to date was uncovering from a veil of cement plaster, a fully intact and well crafted stone jamb wall with it’s quintessential spy window that once supported a grand canopy chimney over the hearth (one I plan to fully restore), an absolute gem of our heritage in my mind.. If a planning authority fails to recognise the value of this structure and bend over backwards to reclassifiy this as a habitable dwelling, then the system in this country is entirely dysfunctional in my opinion….

Will they bend over backwards for me, or would they prefer to let it rot?

Two in one month – it must be signs of a recovery! 🙂

Simon, IMO you cannot simply recommission a decommissioned building, willy-nilly..
You cannot simply start doingworks to something supposed to be an ex-habitable structure to make it habitable again.
Doing any works to make it habitable may be viewed as substantially the same in planning law terms as building a house without permission.

We’re all suffering from the lack of proper regulation and foresight in Government and Banking levels of our society and alleged corruption and croneyism at the highest levels.
Yet here you are going to great lengths to apparently bat back competent planning advice from a host of competent building professionals AND hoping for special treatment from the local authority.

Stop talking this through, start listening, take professional advice you have to pay for and then maybe you’ll appreciate it.
But you’re being told here, this week, categorically, that NO, if is not safe to assume you’ll get permission for this – you maydo, but its by no means certain.

So +1 what henno and other have advised – tread very cautiously from here on in or in a year you may be back here seeking free advice on planning enforcement issues.
Appoint your own architect to advise you on all of this, especially in relation to this bucket of cold water I’m about to douse you with to get you to see some sense; –

• the ex-house is not a listed building
• you will get no derogations from the LA on compliance with the building regulations
• it will never be “right” given the structure and lack of DPC and insulation [rising dampt through walls, etc. and
• in the end, it will be cheaper to knock and rebuild

Now I know some builders and architects who would make a good job if this, but I also have met a lot of people like you – you won’t employ them.

You are a tyre-kicker here refusing good advice even at planning level.
You have no intention of hiring a professional or even a competent contractor because you think you know everything and everyone should do things your way.
You intend to do this on a shoestring and don’t want any professional or contractor standing between you and the direct labourers you are going to brow-beat into doing things your way.

Over to you, since you don’t listen to advice – you’ve been warned, more than once now – a damp cold house, enforcement action and a court case will cost you a lot more than not appointing competent people because you want to “do it your way” – saving pennies and losing pounds.
Lose the ego – stick to what you’re good at, and appoint others to do what they’re good at – and pay them.
We all deserve the opportunity to earn a living.

ONQ.

Thanks ONQ for slipping one to Simon.D after he ‘bent over backwards’!

You are unlikely to get the commission to decommission his farmhouse but hopefully we will not have to read any more of his ‘tyre-kicking’ fantasies on here.

Thanks for the Tuesday a.m. chuckle!

@onq wrote:

Two in one month – it must be signs of a recovery! 🙂

Simon, IMO you cannot simply recommission a decommissioned building, willy-nilly..
You cannot simply start doingworks to something supposed to be an ex-habitable structure to make it habitable again.
Doing any works to make it habitable may be viewed as substantially the same in planning law terms as building a house without permission.

Indeed I can start doing works, especially repair on the structure as it’s in dire need of drainage works, reroofing, reflooring and replastering… Without which it will be gone beyond repair within a decade…

@onq wrote:

We’re all suffering from the lack of proper regulation and foresight in Government and Banking levels of our society and alleged corruption and croneyism at the highest levels.
Yet here you are going to great lengths to apparently bat back competent planning advice from a host of competent building professionals AND hoping for special treatment from the local authority.

I’m not looking for special treatment personally.. I’m expecting that the heritage of this country receives special treatment.. . Yes it would be cheaper to knock… Yes it would be easier (and cheaper) to build a new house from scratch on some greenfield site a few hundred yards from the farmhouse.. But that means the history and character of that dwelling and the fire that has lit in the hearth of that house for the last 200 yr+ is permanently extinguished… If the system doesn’t go out of it’s way to protect these structures, then the system is very wrong in my mind, and still champions the bulldozing of our dwindling rural heritage… I’m looking for improved regulation of these issues such that the destruction stops, and the professionals in this country stop their bulldozing refrain…. It’s a disgrace of a situation whereby there’s no laws stopping me from bulldozing this property, while at the same time there are laws preventing me from saving it… Am I the only one who sees the wrong in this situation?…

@onq wrote:

• the ex-house is not a listed building
• you will get no derogations from the LA on compliance with the building regulations
• it will never be “right” given the structure and lack of DPC and insulation [rising dampt through walls, etc. and
• in the end, it will be cheaper to knock and rebuild

Now I know some builders and architects who would make a good job if this, but I also have met a lot of people like you – you won’t employ them.

That single statement highlights whats wrong with most of the construction profession in this country with respect of restoration (i.e. ignorance)… With such a blinkered view of construction methods focusing purely on the cling-film approach of Plastic, Steel and Cement… We’re miles behind the UK in this respect, who actually appreciate their old cottages/buildings making it very difficult for people like me to find professionals who know what they’re talking about… There are many ways to deal with damp and insulation in old houses, i.e. french drains, recycled foam glass/coat lecca under floor, hemp lime plasters, limerete.. The key is breathability and drainage… Feel free to educate yourself and do this country a service…

You were warned about doing the works – having been “decommissioned” I doubt any of the exempted development schedule applies.

As for the kind of works, I know the measures taken by Grade I to III Conservation Architects – you forgot about creating an Area and using Calcium Silicate render.

However all of those have the common denominator that they are not works you undertake to a shed, but to a habitable building and you don’t have permission for that use yet.

You can spray your protests about all you want but it all boils down to you saying you should be let do it “for the good of the country” – I heard enough of that nonsense from Cowan yesterday.

ONQ.

Simon

When you get advice of that quality free; do not look a gift horse in the mouth. There have been enough people wiped out taking chances in recent years, unless you can fund the entire project from cash and can afford to lose it; you may find getting finance on potentially unauthorised development as difficult as it always should have been i.e. non-existant.

On the house in Meath that the High Court ordered demolished; was it ever established if A BANK FUNDED THE PROJECT AND IF SO HAS THE RELEVANT LOAN OFFICER BEEN FIRED YET?

@onq wrote:

You can spray your protests about all you want but it all boils down to you saying you should be let do it “for the good of the country” – I heard enough of that nonsense from Cowan yesterday.

You seem to share the same delusion as cowen, in that you don’t see what’s in “the national interest” as you’ve essentially just said that maintaining our vernacular heritage is nonsense.. . And you wonder why people like me won’t employ “professionals” expousing such attitudes….

In fairness to what he said he said it would be cheaper to knock it and rebuild than retrofit damp proofing systems, use period materials etc; it is up to any individual to chose period over new even though period usually has a higher price but depreciates a lot more gracefully.

What I don’t get is why if you want to do something that is obviously a major project why you won’t simply pop down to the planning office and have a chat; no doubt most planners in local authorites are trying to justify their existance at the mo; you would be very very welcome…….

@PVC King wrote:

Simon
When you get advice of that quality free; do not look a gift horse in the mouth. There have been enough people wiped out taking chances in recent years, unless you can fund the entire project from cash and can afford to lose it;

I totally appreciate the advice, and it has been very helpful. I’m just very frustrated with the idea that the council may well say no to me and condemn yet another of our cottages to dereliction.. I’m equally frustrated by some of the professionals on this thread, who many may go to for advice on these issues, expressing such an apathetic attitude toward the destruction of our rural heritage and showing such blind allegiance to an obviously flawed system…

@PVC King wrote:

What I don’t get is why if you want to do something that is obviously a major project why you won’t simply pop down to the planning office and have a chat; no doubt most planners in local authorites are trying to justify their existance at the mo; you would be very very welcome…….

I was thinking along the same lines myself, these people must be desperate for business to justify their numbers… So I’m expecting very happy faces.. I’m actually engaging with the local council at the moment on this issue, so do intend on keeping this all above board and hope to organise a pre-planning meeting in the coming months when I have some Idea where I stand..

@vca wrote:

The best advice I can give you is that you seek professional advice from a qualified and registered architect in order that the exact circumstances at your parents’ site can be established. Check out http://www.riai.ie for architects in your area. It is likely that an initial site visit / assessment will cost very little if anything at all.

A lot has changed since the original planning application was made 15 years ago and the planning authority may now look favourably on the re-use and sensitive restoration of the old farmhouse.

Here is a link to the County Kildare Development Plan 2011-2017 Housing Policy and if you read section 4.12.1 it gives some idea of the considerations of the Planning Authorities on this issue.

http://kildare.ie/CountyCouncil/Planning/DevelopmentPlans/PreparationoftheDraftCountyDevelopmentPlan2011-2017/DraftCountyDevelopmentPlan2011-2017/LinkToDocument,22016,en.pdf

Simon.D

You got a lot of great and free advice above (my own comment quoted) that is commensurate with your own objectives. I do not understand why you are now turning around and lambasting the very same people who were trying to help and guide you.

Do you mind me asking you what age are you? You are probably quite young if you are living at home with the Mammy on the farm and maybe you still have a lot to learn.

@vca wrote:

Simon.D
You got a lot of great and free advice above (my own comment quoted) that is commensurate with your own objectives. I do not understand why you are now turning around and lambasting the very same people who were trying to help and guide you.

I think lambasting is a bit strong a word, I suppose I’m just trying to return the favour and guide those on this thread who seem have little respect for the old buildings that “litter” our landscape and somewhat tackle the bulldoze mentality that is absolutely rife in this country, in major contrast to our british neighbours… (that, and I just like arguing)

@vca wrote:

Do you mind me asking you what age are you? You are probably quite young if you are living at home with the Mammy on the farm and maybe you still have a lot to learn.

We all have lots to learn, which is why I ventured on to this forum in the first place… But I’m on the good side of thirty if that helps you any…

Just to say, I really do appreciate the help, especially that paragraph in the linked document… So Thanks!

Even fifteen years ago, local authorities had officers concerned with conservation.

If this building had any merit it would have been listed.

ONQ.

Shite shall surely settle this spat? what size are the percolation areas required for the existing and restored build?

Absolutely.

Simon, have a word with Kildare’s conservation officer Peter Black. The conservation officer’s opinion re the significance of the structure will be key to the planning authority making any decision to ‘recommission’ the house on the basis of architectural heritage merit. Mud, and partial mud, houses are very typical of Kildare and Leinster counties and are generally deemed to be of significance, particularly if your house is of the scale you are suggesting it is. I don’t understand your waryness about getting it protected – either you want to do it right or you don’t.

onq, nothing could be further from the truth in relation to a comprehensive record of architectural heritage. Every county, not withstanding the NIAH surveys – which were also limited in scope in the initial years – and especially in the case of vernacular dwellings, has an incomplete record of architectural heritage. Nothing should be taken for granted in this respect. Also, I often get the impression from your otherwise well-informed posts, that appointing a conservation architect to an historic structure solves one’s problems. The regularly implied logic that the architect deals with their bit and the conservation architect deals with theirs, and never the twain shall meet, is a most uncomfortable concept and has been at the root cause of every conservation disaster in this country over the past decade. Secondly, conservation architecture in Ireland is still in its infancy – if anything, the growing numbers of Grade IIIs on the market of late to boost practices’ profiles is of distinct concern in such a youthful sector – exposing historic structures to ill-informed works with an official stamp of approval. Still, let’s be positive and view it as a stepping stone to a broader awareness.

@GrahamH wrote:

Absolutely.

Simon, have a word with Kildare’s conservation officer Peter Black. The conservation officer’s opinion re the significance of the structure will be key to the planning authority making any decision to ‘recommission’ the house on the basis of architectural heritage merit. Mud, and partial mud, houses are very typical of Kildare and Leinster counties and are generally deemed to be of significance, particularly if your house is of the scale you are suggesting it is. I don’t understand your waryness about getting it protected – either you want to do it right or you don’t.

Thanks for that Graham.. Thats more or less what I was hoping, i.e. that a significant weight may be given, in acessing eligibility for permission, to heritage value, if I get the right people on side…

I’ve attached some photos which I think highlight this value… I’ve also attached an illustration showing the purpose of the jamb wall in supporting a large canopy style chimney made of wattle and daub, a feature I am hoping to recreate as can be seen in my own drawings of the house which are also attached…

@simon.d wrote:

……………… Also, could it be classed as an agricultural building seeing as it’s positioned on a working farm? i.e. I could be restoring the farmhouse to be a fancy chicken coop…Could that block demolition if it came to it? Does the agricultural aspect throw up any planning oppurtunities? (sic)

Please note that the relevant structure has been under consideration and described by Simon.d as :

1. A decommissioned farmhouse.
2. An agricultural outbuilding.
3. A fancy chicken coop.
4. A structure of such local and/or national architectural and historic significance that it is worthy of restoration and conservation with the full support of the architectural, planning and conservation authority,

Why don’t you just go and pay someone to make a planning submission?

@Tayto wrote:

Please note that the relevant structure has been under consideration and described by Simon.d as :

1. A decommissioned farmhouse.
2. An agricultural outbuilding.
3. A fancy chicken coop.
4. A structure of such local and/or national architectural and historic significance that it is worthy of restoration and conservation with the full support of the architectural, planning and conservation authority,

Why don’t you just go and pay someone to make a planning submission?

Tayto – a crisp response as always.

sorry

I agree wholeheartedly FWIW

This, however, is a site that everyone should read regardless

http://www.buildingsofireland.ie/Resources/DOEHLGPublications/#d.en.137

Can I ask why your parents didnt restore this building in the first place rather than build the big brash new house beside it?

Given that you say that we dont appreciate our built heritage surely its the attitude of people like them that is the problem here? When they applied for a “replacement” dwelling were they not then consigning this building to the scrapheap? Are they not the people you should be blaming rather than the local authority?

@pandaz7 wrote:

Given that you say that we dont appreciate our built heritage surely its the attitude of people like them that is the problem here? When they applied for a “replacement” dwelling were they not then consigning this building to the scrapheap? Are they not the people you should be blaming rather than the local authority?

I agree that they are indeed apportioned some part of the blame here, though the buck does stop with the council me thinks.. I’m actually very glad they didn’t go near the house as to be quite frank they would have made a mess out of it as both themselves and the professionals guiding them at time would have been clueless when confronted with clay walls and quite probably would have went with the decision to knock and rebuild with materials they were more comfortable ..

I have a lot of smypathy with what you want to do, and your motives are good, but at the same time your parents basically applied to decomission this house and as a result get the benefit of a replacement dwelling, not an additional house. How can you now complain that the old house cant be brought to life? That ship has sailed; the opportunity has passed. How can the planners make an exception for your individual case? Every farmer in the country that got a replacement dwelling passed would be wanting to overhaul the old homestead that now has calves in it, leading to yet more unsustainable development. You cant have your cake and eat it.

@pandaz7 wrote:

How can you now complain that the old house cant be brought to life? That ship has sailed; the opportunity has passed. How can the planners make an exception for your individual case?

I would hope planners would make exceptions in all similar cases to mine, whereby the decision determines whether a vernacular dwelling house is restored or left to fall into absolute disrepair… I think a decision formed simply on the basis you’ve outlined above is more a case of biting off your nose to spite your face…

Your situation is not dissimilar to many others, where a new house has been
built with the planners’ proviso that the old house (sometimes also “condemned” for
ease of obtaining the permission for the new house) not be used as a dwelling again.
Lately, I saw such an old ruin on about half an acre and about 30 yds north of the new
one 😡 actually for sale at €200,000 with the implied suggestion that PP would be
no bother . . .
Incredibly, PP was restored to the old house. Reading the planning file, the architect
representing the present owner (and son of its original & now dceased owner) said that
the derelict house was part of an existing rural cluster and was well shrouded by its
surrounding trees.

But to your situation:-

You have one trump, at least, in that you are the son of the farm owner.
This – notwithstanding your having another off-farm job – will allow you to claim to be
a part-time farmer on your parents’ farm.
This makes it very important to be close to the work, particularly if you have cows
calving or sows having banbhs. Obviously, it allows you to connect TV cameras in the byres
to a monitor in your bedroom — saving you the bother of dressing and going out numerous
times during those nights when an animal is close to her time.

Clearly, there are other non-architectural points that ought count in your favour too.
For example, it is always desirable that parents have one of their family living close to
them as they advance in years.
And you are by now an established member of that townland community.

But getting this permission is still not going to be a job that you can do yourself.
And, no matter how much in love with the old house you are, be under no illusion about
trying to make it into a livable home.
It would really have helped had you sketched up the situation so that better judgements
could have been made by the architects here on the forum.
I’m assuming that the old house is ~ 20′ on the gable width and one room deep.
You must realise that between the need for structural integrity, weathering protection and
proper insulation it may well be easier/cheaper/offer more internal design options to knock
the old structure and rebuild using a vernacular form.

But what you really need here is a capable architect, one who has a name for covering all
the possible planners’ objections.
Hope it goes well for you.

@teak wrote:

It would really have helped had you sketched up the situation so that better judgements
could have been made by the architects here on the forum.
I’m assuming that the old house is ~ 20′ on the gable width and one room deep.

Gable width is a bit over 5m, and one room deep all the way along.. I’ve attached some images of my proposed layout resulting in a two (dormer) bedroom, one bathroom, TV room, living/dining room, kitchen, utility.

@teak wrote:

I’m assuming that the old house is ~ 20′ on the gable width and one room deep.
You must realise that between the need for structural integrity, weathering protection and
proper insulation it may well be easier/cheaper/offer more internal design options to knock
the old structure and rebuild using a vernacular form.

I agree that it may well be easier and cheaper to knock and rebuild, but I’d much prefer to repair the building, even to use it as a shed, than knock it, I’ve access to plenty of greenfield sites on which I could potentially get pp & build so knocking is not an option nor requirement.. The existing layout does massively compromise my design options, but I think this compromise is what retains character, and I therefore want to change as little as possible… The structure needs repair in certain places, and I may need to compromise in how I go about repairing it, and whether or not I may need to reinforce (i.e. with wood, limecrete etc) – again reparation of the cob structure is my ideal here, and I have someone lined up with experience in this respect, though reinforment may be necessary. The walls themselves I don’t think need much insulation (being made of cob), though I am considering a hempcrete coat or something similar.. Flooring I hope to use an underlayer of coated Leca for insulation, and in the roof glass wool may be along the lines of what I’m looking for… Roofing I hope to use slate, while the external walls will be lime plastered and whitewashed…. Cost is definitely an issue using these unconventional methods, and I’ve yet to properly cost the project, ideally 80,000 or so to get it done, though I’m probably being very, very optimistic, though I plan to do much of the labour myself which hopefully will make this loose budget somewhat realisable ..

@teak wrote:

But what you really need here is a capable architect, one who has a name for covering all
the possible planners’ objections.
Hope it goes well for you.

Thanks again for the advice, you’re helping me learn the planning lingo… From a design point of view I don’t see the need for an architect, as I’m running with the philosophy of doing as little as possible to the existing structure/layout, such that a maximum amount of character is retained, and see it more as a repair excercise than anything else, and fitting in my mod-cons around this.. I do agree however that I probably do need the help of an architect in getting planning permission, and will be contacting professionals to aid in this process..

From a design point of view I don’t see the need for an architect,

Oh, yes you do need an architect !

Are you au fait with all the building codes ?
Do you know for sure that rebuilding directly upon a house that is most likely
off-square by 1′ or more (most 50′ long houses that age are) will be permitted ?
Do you really know that the spatial vision you want is acceptable building-codewise ?
Most planning officers are from an engineering background and would love to
trip you up on these details and smack you down like an uppity cat.

But aside from all that a good architect will not want to change your vision —
but rather enhance and improve it with a range of options.
And you can hardly expect an architect to successfully present and argue your application
before a planning officer when he/she has had no input whatever into it.

I accept that the choice of architect is something you must do carefully.
You need respect for your own vision and a genuine knowledge and interest in rural
vernacular form, how to work within its constraints and still produce a proper home.

That said, you have much going for you here I think.

1. Local applicant.
2. Need to live close to parents.
3. Part-time farmer >> need to live close to farmyard.
4. Rebuilt house would be within existing cluster of buildings >> no new blot on landscape.
5. Little additional landscaping needed.
6. Applicant wishes to preserve as faithfully as possible a traditional house form.
7. Any enlargement to original dwelling space, e.g. turf-shed to sun-lounge, would be largely
within existing buildings’ scale.
8. Applicant prepared to make all sewage treatment arrangements that are desirable
for such a dwelling in such a rural setting.

But do not kid yourself into thinking that you’ll pull this one off on your own.
This is not Grand Designs.
This is more like Petty Begrudgery, here in our planning offices.
And we all need a good professional with us to get our FPP.

@teak wrote:

From a design point of view I don’t see the need for an architect,

Oh, yes you do need an architect !

Are you au fait with all the building codes ?
Do you know for sure that rebuilding directly upon a house that is most likely
off-square by 1′ or more (most 50′ long houses that age are) will be permitted ?
Do you really know that the spatial vision you want is acceptable building-codewise ?
Most planning officers are from an engineering background and would love to
trip you up on these details and smack you down like an uppity cat.

But aside from all that a good architect will not want to change your vision —
but rather enhance and improve it with a range of options.
And you can hardly expect an architect to successfully present and argue your application
before a planning officer when he/she has had no input whatever into it.

I accept that the choice of architect is something you must do carefully.
You need respect for your own vision and a genuine knowledge and interest in rural
vernacular form, how to work within its constraints and still produce a proper home.

You’re doing quite the job convincing me here! And I’m coming round to the idea that I may need to get an architect more intimately involved in the project… Excluding the project managment aspects of the build, what sort of price should it cost to get from where I am to FPP? Also where can I find architects who both like and are comfortable with old mud buildings?

@teak wrote:

1. Local applicant.
2. Need to live close to parents.
3. Part-time farmer >> need to live close to farmyard.
4. Rebuilt house would be within existing cluster of buildings >> no new blot on landscape.
5. Little additional landscaping needed.
6. Applicant wishes to preserve as faithfully as possible a traditional house form.
7. Any enlargement to original dwelling space, e.g. turf-shed to sun-lounge, would be largely
within existing buildings’ scale.
8. Applicant prepared to make all sewage treatment arrangements that are desirable
for such a dwelling in such a rural setting.

Thanks for the list…

On the money cost to FPP it is something that you can ask them during
your preliminary discussions with the architects.
My own experience is with revamping 1950s farmhouse layouts and with
modern designed homes.

Where can I find architects who both like and are comfortable with old mud buildings?

A number of approaches to this.
1. Officially :-
(a) Call RIAI & other architecture organisations, ask for names of
professionals in your immediate area (county and neighbouring counties)
who have declared interest/expertise/experience with this type of work.
Only one I have heard of is a comprehensive nationwide practice, ACP.
They do a share of big restorations, e.g. mediaeval churches.
But as these are based in Co Limerick, I do not know if this would suit you.
ACP : tel 061 386555.

(b) Contact people who have a deep knowledge and academic interest in
vernacular buildings – many may be from an archaeological, historical,
sociological background – then ask them for examples near you.
Motor around to see these houses.
If impressed, seek names of designer involved.

(c) Enquire – or ask someone else to – at the local Planning Office.
(At this stage have him/her say nothing about need for planning permission !)
Just pose it as a search for suitable architects and builders for a restoration.
Unusual planning applications ought be remembered by the planning staff.

2. Unofficially – Ask small builders nearby if they’ve heard of similar jobs.
If yes, find similar jobs, find builder and architect involved.
Take drives around the countryside and maybe you’ll see one for yourself.

@simon.d wrote:

Also where can I find architects who both like and are comfortable with old mud buildings?

Egypt.

Thanks for that teak..

An exerpt from a document publised on environ.ie: “Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities”

“Because earth walling was traditionally covered with
lime-based roughcast or limewash coatings and
sometimes a stone facing, the construction of these
buildings may not always be readily identifiable.
Their increasing rarity means that the preservation
and maintenance of the surviving examples is
extremely important.“
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Heritage/ArchitecturalHeritage/FileDownLoad,2209,en.pdf

What type of standing would this document have in the eyes of a planner?

It is something to have that.
But you’d be better to start with your county’s official Development Plan.
You can get a copy of this – or its draft version – from your local authority.
That should have criteria for buildings worthy of conservation status.
If the Dept of Env’s criteria override this or are to augment the LA criteria,
this I am not sure of – this may be another question for an architect.
I wonder if a call or two to the Dept of Heritage would be worthwhile.
This matter is down their way in a sense. Although they are largely more
concerned with bigger buildings, they do have the people there who have
the knowledge on this sort of thing.
I assume that you’ve poked each of the walls of the old house to see the type
of construction in it ? Take plenty of detailed photos on a digital camera so
you can add in labels for the various layers, etc.

@teak wrote:

I assume that you’ve poked each of the walls of the old house to see the type
of construction in it ? Take plenty of detailed photos on a digital camera so
you can add in labels for the various layers, etc.

The layers are very easy to identify, having stripped it back, and the central two rooms around the “lobby entry” is all clay with (some) brick/stone facing on the external side, with hipped gables (original thatch & roof structure still intact under corrugated sheeting) as can be made out in my sketch below..

The left hand (full gable) extension, including the lean-too portion, is stone and dates from pre 1910 osi and probably correlates with the construction of some of the stone outbuildings (very same structural design) & stone jamb wall (though that could be earlier).. There is also right hand addition of cement blockwork and dates from the late 70’s (assuming the bits of newspaper I found blocking up draught holes relate to this addition). This 70’s rennovation possibly also included the construction of a conventional chimney with range and central heating, and a square flat roofed kitchen off the orignal front door (both knocked in my sketch above). So at least two major rennovations added to the previously existing clay structure over the last hundred years or so.

@teak wrote:

It is something to have that.
But you’d be better to start with your county’s official Development Plan.
You can get a copy of this – or its draft version – from your local authority.
That should have criteria for buildings worthy of conservation status.

Here’s an exerpt from my counties 2011 – 2017 development plan (waterford):
http://www.waterfordcoco.ie/en/services/planning/draftcountydevelopmentplan2011-2017/Chapter%208%20Environment%20and%20Conservation.pdf

Objective BH 1
It is an objective of the Council to identify structures of vernacular architecture and protect such structures in a manner that allows for sensitive evolution of an area.

Policy BH 7
It is the policy of the Council to promote and retain original building fabric such as lime mortar slate, thatch, timber sash windows, render and joinery details such as doorways and bargeboards. Where traditional features such as sliding sash windows have been removed, their reinstatement shall be encouraged.

So they seem on-side…

Yes, that is promising.
But never forget that the onus is on you to prove that it is a
sufficiently important vernacular house to warrant preservation.
I doubt if the planning ofice would have appropriate experience
to judge this.
And neither will they accept all your gathered evidence since you
are – I assume ? – just an amateur in this area.
A report signed by someone appropriately qualified is needed for
passage of ‘vernacular structure’ status to your house.
Cost-effectively, of course !