Neighbour planning permission
Discussion
The objection is that this could be the start of something else.
It's not what we were told it would be. It's 3 or 4 times the size of the original stables. Stables fit in a paddock - this thing looks more like a log cabin
I'm not against a home office in a paddock. It's not a particularly nice structure but if they have permission for it - then so be it. That's the end of the story. If they're doing something they don't have permission to do then that's an issue.
It's not what we were told it would be. It's 3 or 4 times the size of the original stables. Stables fit in a paddock - this thing looks more like a log cabin
I'm not against a home office in a paddock. It's not a particularly nice structure but if they have permission for it - then so be it. That's the end of the story. If they're doing something they don't have permission to do then that's an issue.
woof said:
The objection is that this could be the start of something else.
It's not what we were told it would be. It's 3 or 4 times the size of the original stables. Stables fit in a paddock - this thing looks more like a log cabin
I'm not against a home office in a paddock. It's not a particularly nice structure but if they have permission for it - then so be it. That's the end of the story. If they're doing something they don't have permission to do then that's an issue.
But why? The building is of a size that they have permission for, so that's off the table.It's not what we were told it would be. It's 3 or 4 times the size of the original stables. Stables fit in a paddock - this thing looks more like a log cabin
I'm not against a home office in a paddock. It's not a particularly nice structure but if they have permission for it - then so be it. That's the end of the story. If they're doing something they don't have permission to do then that's an issue.
If they're going to try to convert it and sell it as another house, then I agree that's a problem.
But it's only the difference between being filled with Ikea and filled with lawnmowers, how is it any skin off your nose?
SpeckledJim said:
woof said:
The objection is that this could be the start of something else.
It's not what we were told it would be. It's 3 or 4 times the size of the original stables. Stables fit in a paddock - this thing looks more like a log cabin
I'm not against a home office in a paddock. It's not a particularly nice structure but if they have permission for it - then so be it. That's the end of the story. If they're doing something they don't have permission to do then that's an issue.
But why? The building is of a size that they have permission for, so that's off the table.It's not what we were told it would be. It's 3 or 4 times the size of the original stables. Stables fit in a paddock - this thing looks more like a log cabin
I'm not against a home office in a paddock. It's not a particularly nice structure but if they have permission for it - then so be it. That's the end of the story. If they're doing something they don't have permission to do then that's an issue.
If they're going to try to convert it and sell it as another house, then I agree that's a problem.
But it's only the difference between being filled with Ikea and filled with lawnmowers, how is it any skin off your nose?
We just need to understand what has been allowed here and unfortunately it has to involve the planning officer. He seemed to think that what they've done is outside the agreed permission.
Also worth mentioning that this isn't tucked away out of site. It's in plan view of our complex
FYI - I ain't no nimby
Planning rules are not based on what is reasonable, but on what is lawful.
If they have built something they don't have the relevant permission for, or are using a building for a non-permitted use, then the OP has every right to object, especially if it could negatively affect his own property. Whether he chooses to is up to him.
As frustrating as I often find planning rules, I dislike those who somehow think they don't apply to them even more.
If they have built something they don't have the relevant permission for, or are using a building for a non-permitted use, then the OP has every right to object, especially if it could negatively affect his own property. Whether he chooses to is up to him.
As frustrating as I often find planning rules, I dislike those who somehow think they don't apply to them even more.
barryrs said:
annsxman said:
Riley Blue said:
Is this the exact wording, "shall be used for the keeping of equipment and produce incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house and shall not be used for any commercial or other activities."?
If so, a home office could be considered to fall within that condition.
As construction is almost complete, is the planning application on-line? If so, could you provide the link?
How inn earth can using the building as an office fall within the definition of "keeping of equipment and produce"?If so, a home office could be considered to fall within that condition.
As construction is almost complete, is the planning application on-line? If so, could you provide the link?
In most cases using an out building (that has planning permission) as a home office would be subservient to the main dwelling and as such would be considered incidental enjoyment.
Hub said:
Inkyfingers said:
Planning rules are not based on what is reasonable, but on what is lawful.
They are also not based on speculation - you can't take action because they might convert it to a house at a later date!I dont think the OP should worry about any future use as this would require an application that would be assessed/judged on its own merit. Just because a structure exists does not make it easier to gain permission for a future change of use.
barryrs said:
Hub said:
Inkyfingers said:
Planning rules are not based on what is reasonable, but on what is lawful.
They are also not based on speculation - you can't take action because they might convert it to a house at a later date!I dont think the OP should worry about any future use as this would require an application that would be assessed/judged on its own merit. Just because a structure exists does not make it easier to gain permission for a future change of use.
As mentioned - if the permission they have in correct for the building they have put up is correct then I have no complaints (I'd be surprised but there's no complaint from me).
From what the planning officer has said already it seems that what they have built isn't what they said they would build.
If i had bought that land and didn't own horses - then why would you want it. Only reason would be to build something more useful or develop it
Anyway - we'll see what the planning officer says next week.
Riley Blue said:
Correct. I spent five years on a planning board dealing with similar applications.
The words "incidental to" refer to the "keeping of equipment and produce" - there is no way, unless some punctuation is missing, that you can take the words "incidental to" in isolation. the purpose permitted is the keeping of equipment and produce with the proviso that it must be incidental to etc. So keeping a sit on mower or your harvest of brussels sprouts in the bullding would be OK. If you the planning authority wanted to give them a degree of carte blanche they could have authorised any activity which was 'incidental to" the enjoyment of the main dwelling.Riley Blue said:
Correct. I spent five years on a planning board dealing with similar applications.
The words "incidental to" refer to the "keeping of equipment and produce" - there is no way, unless some punctuation is missing, that you can take the words "incidental to" in isolation. the purpose permitted is the keeping of equipment and produce with the proviso that it must be incidental to etc. So keeping a sit on mower or your harvest of brussels sprouts in the bullding would be OK. If you the planning authority wanted to give them a degree of carte blanche they could have authorised any activity which was 'incidental to" the enjoyment of the main dwelling.I helped my parents object to a neighbours planning and found that the council had published planning guidelines. Objecting on the grounds of a development devaluing your own property was specifically listed as an invalid reason to object so you might be wasting your time worrying about that. In our case the space appeared to be living quarters and the doors faced directly towards kitchen/bedroom/bathroom windows - a privacy issue. Also the plans had the incorrect compass orientation so that the loss of light was not highlighted on their plans.
If there is no produce (unless it's horse s
t), 'incidental to' refers to equipment, the nature of which is not specified. As I understand it, this is a two acre paddock rather than a small holding or farm. Although the word 'seed' is mentioned, there's no indication of agricultural use; 'equipment' could thus mean almost anything. We don't have enough information which is why I asked earlier for a link to the on-line application/consultation.
t), 'incidental to' refers to equipment, the nature of which is not specified. As I understand it, this is a two acre paddock rather than a small holding or farm. Although the word 'seed' is mentioned, there's no indication of agricultural use; 'equipment' could thus mean almost anything. We don't have enough information which is why I asked earlier for a link to the on-line application/consultation.
THIS!!!
Inkyfingers said:
Planning rules are not based on what is reasonable, but on what is lawful.
If they have built something they don't have the relevant permission for, or are using a building for a non-permitted use, then the OP has every right to object, especially if it could negatively affect his own property. Whether he chooses to is up to him.
As frustrating as I often find planning rules, I dislike those who somehow think they don't apply to them even more.
If they have built something they don't have the relevant permission for, or are using a building for a non-permitted use, then the OP has every right to object, especially if it could negatively affect his own property. Whether he chooses to is up to him.
As frustrating as I often find planning rules, I dislike those who somehow think they don't apply to them even more.
OP - I wouldn't worry about the visit by the planning officer outing you. Looking at the supporting documents, it looks as if the council had a phone conversation with them back in the summer, to confirm the use of the "barn". They were probably already on the radar before your involvement. It's a pretty big structure for a future fruit/veg hobby.
Sorry, couldn't help but have a look for the application. I'm not a planning officer but I do look at applications in my line of work.. (Your council's search facility was absolutely horrible, ugh!)
Sorry, couldn't help but have a look for the application. I'm not a planning officer but I do look at applications in my line of work.. (Your council's search facility was absolutely horrible, ugh!)
A real shame some out there just cant get on with their lives instead of always worrying what others do. Its on their land not yours OP, its not doing anyone any harm and you yourself described it as nicely built. So what if it has patio doors instead of stable doors,so what if it contains a table/chairs and pens instead of seeds?
None of us are on this earth long, times much better spent enjoying life rather than quarreling with neighbours over something so petty..
None of us are on this earth long, times much better spent enjoying life rather than quarreling with neighbours over something so petty..
22Rgt said:
A real shame some out there just cant get on with their lives instead of always worrying what others do. Its on their land not yours OP, its not doing anyone any harm and you yourself described it as nicely built. So what if it has patio doors instead of stable doors,so what if it contains a table/chairs and pens instead of seeds?
None of us are on this earth long, times much better spent enjoying life rather than quarreling with neighbours over something so petty..
Rubbish and can I say you're a hypocrite to come on here telling others to get on with their lives without worrying about what others do and think. You by definition are telling people what to do and think!!None of us are on this earth long, times much better spent enjoying life rather than quarreling with neighbours over something so petty..
Why have any planning rules and process if you can give it 2 fingers and ignore your neighbours.
If it has permission, it has permission, and so be it. If it doesn't and the op feels it has an impact on him then he has every right. The person doing the building could just as easily apply for what he wanted and not something else that sounds appropriate in a rural location. He didn't as he knows what he applied for stood a better chance of getting through.
To whoever mentioned this: owning land, believe it or not, some people just want to own the land around their property to stop this type of issue occurring.
Edited by Jon1967x on Saturday 24th January 07:25
22Rgt said:
A real shame some out there just cant get on with their lives instead of always worrying what others do. Its on their land not yours OP, its not doing anyone any harm and you yourself described it as nicely built. So what if it has patio doors instead of stable doors,so what if it contains a table/chairs and pens instead of seeds?
None of us are on this earth long, times much better spent enjoying life rather than quarreling with neighbours over something so petty..
Pleased to hear that you are so magnanimous however I am with the OP. If someone applies for permission to build something they should build what they have applied to build, not something else. If they wanted to build something else that is what they should have applied to build. The rules are the same for all of us, we have the right to object etc, that's what the rules are there for. Everyone has different tastes, views, opinions etc and it would be boring if they didn't so nothing wrong witht the OP questioning it.None of us are on this earth long, times much better spent enjoying life rather than quarreling with neighbours over something so petty..
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff