Permited Development
Discussion
Hi All,
I will try to lay out the facts and then the question.
1. A house was for sale on a 1 acre plot, and in the middle of the plot there is an outbuilding that originally had a thatched roof but because of disrepair the owners had put a temporary corigated flat roof on it.
2. The owner of the house and land sold agreed to sell us the house and 3/4 of an acre of the land, the new boundry would be along the edge of the outbuilding.
3. We had exchanged (so insured the property) but not completed on the house, and during all the recent storms the flat roof was blown off. And some structural damage to a couple of the walls.
4. We Completed on the house and moved in.
5. We sorted things out with the insurance company and accepted a settlement.
6. We decided that rather than replace the flat roof again we would be better to replace it with a pitched roof. We made the roof 4m tall and repaired the damaged wall and generally made the building good again.
I have had a leter this morning from the local council stating that because the building is within 2m of the new boundry I now need to apply for planning permission.
Given that the damage was caused whilst the house still belonged to the seller and the insurance claim was also started then how valid do you think this is?
If the house had never been sold this would have been valid under Permitted development.
Thanks.
I will try to lay out the facts and then the question.
1. A house was for sale on a 1 acre plot, and in the middle of the plot there is an outbuilding that originally had a thatched roof but because of disrepair the owners had put a temporary corigated flat roof on it.
2. The owner of the house and land sold agreed to sell us the house and 3/4 of an acre of the land, the new boundry would be along the edge of the outbuilding.
3. We had exchanged (so insured the property) but not completed on the house, and during all the recent storms the flat roof was blown off. And some structural damage to a couple of the walls.
4. We Completed on the house and moved in.
5. We sorted things out with the insurance company and accepted a settlement.
6. We decided that rather than replace the flat roof again we would be better to replace it with a pitched roof. We made the roof 4m tall and repaired the damaged wall and generally made the building good again.
I have had a leter this morning from the local council stating that because the building is within 2m of the new boundry I now need to apply for planning permission.
Given that the damage was caused whilst the house still belonged to the seller and the insurance claim was also started then how valid do you think this is?
If the house had never been sold this would have been valid under Permitted development.
Thanks.
V8RX7 said:
Get this moved to Homes section.
However IMO I think the planners are correct.
It's irrelevant what was or could have been.
As it is now, 4m with 2m of the boundary requires permission.
Either lower it or move the boundary.
Given that the boundary has moved next to an existing building I don't think that's correct. If the building has been there for over 4 years then it has established it's right to be there, hard to imagine that anyone would consider that it should be pulled down because of a boundary change. However IMO I think the planners are correct.
It's irrelevant what was or could have been.
As it is now, 4m with 2m of the boundary requires permission.
Either lower it or move the boundary.
The only question then is if the right remains to rebuild it (I think this may depend on severity of damage and how long it was incomplete for??) and if it has been rebuilt to it's original dimensions.
Steve H said:
Given that the boundary has moved next to an existing building I don't think that's correct. If the building has been there for over 4 years then it has established it's right to be there, hard to imagine that anyone would consider that it should be pulled down because of a boundary change.
The only question then is if the right remains to rebuild it (I think this may depend on severity of damage and how long it was incomplete for??) and if it has been rebuilt to it's original dimensions.
It's a thorny issue because the easy way to get new houses in the country is to build something under PD then try to divide your land and sell it off - hence it's not the boundary change but the change of use that will cause the biggest problemThe only question then is if the right remains to rebuild it (I think this may depend on severity of damage and how long it was incomplete for??) and if it has been rebuilt to it's original dimensions.
I suspect there has been a complaint and there is probably little / no chance of gaining consent
I agree that it's probably come from a complaint 
but if they are still using the building as auxiliary to the main residence it shouldn't involve any change of use.
If I'm understanding the OP correctly, the repaired building remains within the (new) boundary of the original property that he has purchased; it does rather open the question of what the seller intends for the remaining 1/4 acre that wasn't sold and who it was that complained to the council but these are different questions………..
but if they are still using the building as auxiliary to the main residence it shouldn't involve any change of use.If I'm understanding the OP correctly, the repaired building remains within the (new) boundary of the original property that he has purchased; it does rather open the question of what the seller intends for the remaining 1/4 acre that wasn't sold and who it was that complained to the council but these are different questions………..
Steve H said:
I agree that it's probably come from a complaint but if they are still using the building as auxiliary to the main residence it shouldn't involve any change of use.
If I'm understanding the OP correctly, the repaired building remains within the (new) boundary of the original property that he has purchased; it does rather open the question of what the seller intends for the remaining 1/4 acre that wasn't sold and who it was that complained to the council but these are different questions………..
Ah if that's the case, they are being harsh but if they are still using the building as auxiliary to the main residence it shouldn't involve any change of use.If I'm understanding the OP correctly, the repaired building remains within the (new) boundary of the original property that he has purchased; it does rather open the question of what the seller intends for the remaining 1/4 acre that wasn't sold and who it was that complained to the council but these are different questions………..
I read it that the OP had just bought the Outbuilding which was now separate from the original house.
Hi,
To clarify the house and the outbuilding are within the 3/4 of an acre and was sold as part of the house.
The roof was changed from a flat roof to a pitched roof when repairing the building.
The previous owner lived in a static home on site during the conversion of the barn into a house, and decided not to move in when it was finished. So the previous owner will continue to live on the remaining part of the land, which has no buildings on it at all.
The planning officers were visiting a neighbor on a different matter and saw that the roof line had changed and that is the reason that they are aware of the change.
I spoke to planning this morning and they have stated that if the repair to the outbuilding was completed before the house was sold that there would have been no issue. But because the work was not completed until after exchange it now falls four of the 2 meter rule and I need to apply for planning permission. He has intimated without prejudice that he thinks it should be ok, they have not had any complaints etc, as the previous owner and current neighbor is quite happy with the work that has been done, and could have been done before completion had we realised it was going to be an issue.
I think the planning office are just being a little harsh.
To clarify the house and the outbuilding are within the 3/4 of an acre and was sold as part of the house.
The roof was changed from a flat roof to a pitched roof when repairing the building.
The previous owner lived in a static home on site during the conversion of the barn into a house, and decided not to move in when it was finished. So the previous owner will continue to live on the remaining part of the land, which has no buildings on it at all.
The planning officers were visiting a neighbor on a different matter and saw that the roof line had changed and that is the reason that they are aware of the change.
I spoke to planning this morning and they have stated that if the repair to the outbuilding was completed before the house was sold that there would have been no issue. But because the work was not completed until after exchange it now falls four of the 2 meter rule and I need to apply for planning permission. He has intimated without prejudice that he thinks it should be ok, they have not had any complaints etc, as the previous owner and current neighbor is quite happy with the work that has been done, and could have been done before completion had we realised it was going to be an issue.
I think the planning office are just being a little harsh.
It's quite unusual for them to instigate any action without a complaint - it's a bunch of work that they don't need to do.
Personally I'd reply saying that the building has been restored to the original dimensions that it was built to before the temporary flat roof was fitted. I'd say that I believe it has established use and does not require planning permission irrespective of boundary changes and any other regs relating to permitted development rights for new buildings.
Personally I'd reply saying that the building has been restored to the original dimensions that it was built to before the temporary flat roof was fitted. I'd say that I believe it has established use and does not require planning permission irrespective of boundary changes and any other regs relating to permitted development rights for new buildings.
It's all about what you can prove, to counter the argument that it needs retrospective permission and, depending upon the Council and officers involved, could cost you a reasonable amount of time and money to challenge the opinion.
Personally, to save hassle in the first instance, I'd bang in a DIY retrospective planning application, for the sake of a little of your own time and £195. Only if they refuse said application would I think about challenging the point further - life is generally too short to get stressed about it.
Personally, to save hassle in the first instance, I'd bang in a DIY retrospective planning application, for the sake of a little of your own time and £195. Only if they refuse said application would I think about challenging the point further - life is generally too short to get stressed about it.
I would mention that I've come across several properties that the council asked for PP to be submitted - the owners simply ignored them and the Council didn't pursue - 4yrs later they now are legit.
As others have said unless there is a complainant they try to do the minimum work possible.
I would expect them to pursue the guy who is living on the 1/4 acre (if you're in the green belt)
As others have said unless there is a complainant they try to do the minimum work possible.
I would expect them to pursue the guy who is living on the 1/4 acre (if you're in the green belt)
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff