Dwelling

[Macski]

I was looking at a YouTube channel and living off grid. Guy built a shed claimed he could live in it for four years and the land would become residential.

years ago my grand parents owned a cottage and the council forced them to leave it as they considered it not to be fit as a residential property.

So what counts as a dwelling?

[anonymous-user]

Context is everything. There is no single definition of dwelling that is used for all purposes.

Do not believe every bit of blah that you see on the internet.

[gnc]

just lookup certificate of lawfull use.

[Chris32345]

Water tight some provision for heating water supply and waste disposal
Would be at least a minimum I'd imagine

[cossy400]

IIRC i thought it was 10 years?

Friend of mine was trying his luck, bought a field for 20/25k i think, built stables on it originally then chucked a static caravan on it, but council have gave him an inforcement and told him to shift it.

[hutchst]

Odd place to move a thread about the law of adverse posession.

[Grebby]

Macski said:

I was looking at a YouTube channel and living off grid. Guy built a shed claimed he could live in it for four years and the land would become residential.

years ago my grand parents owned a cottage and the council forced them to leave it as they considered it not to be fit as a residential property.

So what counts as a dwelling?

was it maximus ironthumper by any chance?

[Equus]

cossy400 said:

IIRC i thought it was 10 years?

It's 4 years for change of use to a dwelling.

10 years for some other stuff. See section 171B of the T&CPA

hutchst said:

Odd place to move a thread about the law of adverse posession.

It's not about adverse possession: adverse possession is about land ownership, not Planning status.

Macski said:

Guy built a shed claimed he could live in it for four years and the land would become residential.

Not quite. The use becomes 'lawful' in as much as the Local Planning Authority cannot take enforcement action against you for as long as the unauthorised use remains continuous and unbroken, but that's not quite the same as saying that the use of the Planning Use Class of the land has changed to residential.

For example, if you lived in a stable for 4 years, your occupation of that stable as a dwelling would become lawful. But if you then applied for Planning Permission to demolish the stable and build a house in its place, the chances are that the LPA would still tell you to fk right off.

Macski said:

....years ago my grand parents owned a cottage and the council forced them to leave it as they considered it not to be fit as a residential property.

There is separate legislation in the form of the Housing Act 1985 and associated legislation that controls standards of habitability and overcrowding. It is likely that your grandparents' cottage fell foul of this or similar legislation. There are also controls under Building Regulations (Section 77 of the Building Act 1984) which give powers, in extreme circumstances, over buildings that are structurally unsound.

So, basically, you can break down the legislation into four 'areas':

1) Planning - administered and enforced by the Planning Authority.
2) Housing standards - administered and enforced by Environmental Health.
3) Land ownership - administered (but not enforced - enforcement is a civil matter, for the courts) and;
4) Dangerous buildings - administered and enforced by Building Control

By and large, these areas don't overlap: in broad terms, Planning doesn't give two hoots about whether you own the land; Environmental Health doesn't give a fk about whether it's got Planning Permission, etc., etc.

Edited by Equus on Monday 11th November 17:00

[hutchst]

I take your point, but I assumed the poster didn't own the land, because it doesn't say that he did. If he built the shed on land that he owned then you are correct, obviously.

[Equus]

hutchst said:

I take your point, but I assumed the poster didn't own the land, because it doesn't say that he did. If he built the shed on land that he owned then you are correct, obviously.

In terms of his question - whether living on the land for 4 years changes it to residential land use, and what constitutes a dwelling - I am correct, period.

Neither of these questions is related to land ownership.

You don't need to own land to acquire lawfulness under the 4-year rule. As I said, Planning and land ownership are not interdependent. Adverse possession doesn't come into it.