Neighbour planning permission

[woof]

Hey chaps - firstly not sure if this is the right forum but here goes.

Unfortunately I find myself with a problem with a neighbour who we have got on with very well with in the past but now we're coming into some conflict.

Basically - there's a 2 acre paddock. Previously it had a small 2 horse and tack room wooden stable on it.
New owners decided to take it down and put a much larger structure, still wooden, nice patio doors and supposedly so it can be used as an home office etc. It's about 300-400% larger than the previous structure and is not a stables.

Having checked the planning - permission was given for the demolition of the existing stables and the erection of a storage building for tractor, equipment and seeds. And in detail it specifically says 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. Reason to avoid the introduction of a commercial or otherwise adverse use in this location.

The construction is finished. They're doing the internal stuff at the moment. Electrics, water

So what do I do. I can't let them just get away with this. It's going to be detrimental to my property. And who knows they'll try and make it a proper house at some point ?!

Advice welcome !

Edited by woof on Wednesday 21st January 14:00

Edited by woof on Wednesday 21st January 14:23

[woof]

FrankAbagnale said:

Which district/council does the property fall under?

Hertfordshire / Broxbourne

[woof]

garyhun said:

woof said:

So what do I do. I can't let them just get away with this. It's going to be detrimental to my property. And who knows they'll try and make it a proper house at some point ?!

Advise welcome !

Contact the planning department and inform them that you believe a breach of planning has taken place.

I should also add - the area only has a few residences in it. It's rural and it would be 100% obvious who put the complaint in

[woof]

MacW said:

woof said:

I should also add - the area only had a few residences in it. It's rural and it would be 100% obvious who put the complaint in

Then you have no choice but to talk to them.

Actually, you could burn it down I guess but that might be a bit extreme.

Your choice.

It's a really tricky situation !

[woof]

Hub said:

hornetrider said:

said:

And in detail it specifically says shall be used for the keeping of equipment and produce identical to the enjoyment of the dwelling house

Not sure what that means exactly?

Should it be incidental rather than identical?

I think if it is being used for a home office that probably wouldn't be a breach of the condition if the wording is 'incidental' and the building is no larger than it should be.

quite right - incidental.
So you think that even if it was built to be a tractor, equipment and seed store (they don't have a tractor or any farming equipment) and the building isn't fit for that purpose, that it still is OK to use it as a home office, photographic studio ?

Edited by woof on Wednesday 21st January 14:28

[woof]

barryrs said:

Handy guide here - http://plainview.co.uk/ancillary-vs-incidental/177...

planview said:

Planning Definition
There is so much case law examining ancillary/incidental it is difficult to briefly summarise – but it is along the lines of:

Ancillary (needs planning permission) = generally anything you (as a person ) could do normally in a standard house as built; e.g. eat, sleep, sit comfortably, pray, study, watch tv, shower.

Incidental (permitted development) = generally everything else. Including storage, swimming, bowling, gym, art studio, or something that can be classed as a hobby. An incidental use is “parasitic” on the primary use- it cannot exist without it. Also ancillary use can be incorporated as long as it’s subordinate to the incidental, i.e. shower room for gym or small bar area- these are seen to not materially extend the normal living accommodation at the property.

TBH im struggling to see what the fuss is about?

Thanks - that's really useful.

The issue is that a few years ago. The field was a paddock with some horses and a stables. It was a nice view looking out over the fields.

Effectively the paddock is now being used as an extension to a garden (not really an issue for me - though technically not allowed and possibly something they will attempt to change of use at some point) The nice little stables on it is now a not very in keeping large building. That is far from a stables, with nice veranda types doors and windows. My major concern is that give it a few years and the next thing we'll know is that it will become a dwelling.

[woof]

SVTRick said:

woof said:

I should also add - the area only has a few residences in it. It's rural and it would be 100% obvious who put the complaint in

You didn't by any chance misplace your vehicle and some gas tanks into the front foyer of the council offices on or about 15th January ?

Well if you did at least you made bail

No comment

and it's all within a private estate. So no public roads

[woof]

I just wanted some opinions and thoughts.
It's only just gone up and interior hasn't been finished.
So yes, tomorrow I will have a word with the planning officer and get his opinion on it

Thanks everyone for your input

Not a problem Durzel !

Edited by woof on Wednesday 21st January 16:46

[woof]

I don't want to share the actual application for the moment.
But to give you basic overview.
It's a unique rural setting that's 20miles from London just on the other side of the M25. A farming and woodland estate. I live in a group of 5 properties that formed a mainhouse, coach and stables - surrounded by open fields. Live here for 20 years. It's very nice quiet spot. It's all private There's a shared driveway and by actually adding this building it does de value everyone else's property somewhat. or so I'm told.

If what they are doing is above board, then I have nothing to complain about. If what they're doing is a sneaky way of building something and then trying to get respective permission then that shouldn't be allowed.

Speaking with the planning officer today.

Thanks everyone for your input so far

[woof]

Just an update. The site will be inspected next week.

[woof]

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.

[woof]

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.
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 don't know if they building is the correct dimensions. But that's not the issue. From their actions we think that this is the start of a bigger development. I don't mind what they do in that building at all - well unless someone it's going to start using it as accommodation. A few years down the line they get additional planning permission to extend it.

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

[woof]

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!

Agreed.

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.

Isn't respective planning a bit of an issue ?

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.

[woof]

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..

Hi

To explain this and why I'm not happy about it.
What they are doing will have a very negative impact to the immediate area. It's an open rural, paddock and fields. And one might say selfishly it will have a negative impact to my property value. That's been confirmed by a surveyor. Without going into the details - I really need to have some value in my house for my future.

[woof]

gaz1234 said:

If they had planning then it should be on the council website no?
Should all the locals have been sent a letter from the council outlining plans and any objections before they started idling?
Pics required.

I believe it's no longer required to send letters to neighbours. All that needs doing is a A4 letter to be displayed somewhere nearby.

[woof]

andburg said:

Woof - any updates?

Hi

Waiting to hear what the planning officer says. Apparently there's been a visit

[woof]

One of my other neighbours took up the reins on this and dealt with the planning officer.
Apparently the building size is OK but the doors that have been put in are not correct. The nice patio doors potentially and I'm still wondering how the hell you are supposed to get a tractor through a standard size door.

Totally sucks and has made me think that it's time to move.

[woof]

It's 4 times the size of the old stables. It's an ugly building. Ruined the view.
If it was a nice new stables then it would add to the overall look and feel of our area. This doesn't. You'll just need to take my word for that.

It's totally obvious that they have built a basic for a domestic dwelling. It's bigger than their actual house!
It's been built up high on a very large concrete area so they can add decking at some point. It's not an agricultural building.

Anyway - not much we can do about it assuming they change their plans and the council approve the changes for the patio doors

[woof]

It's obviously difficult to convey what impact this building has on the area that I live in.
Suffice to say it does have an impact and if it is converted into a dwelling at some point - which can be it's only purpose then it will very much devalue my property.

Anyway. It's in the hands of the council. So I'll leave it at that. Appreciate everyone's advice and opinions - all good.