Planning question
Discussion
We moved into a new house 10 days ago. There is a covenant that the house will only be used as a single residential dwelling for five years which I presume will apply to all houses on the development.
Neighbours (4 bed detached) haven’t moved in yet but there is a notice outside the house for change of use to “Care home for young people (C2)”.
Wife has gone ballistic and expects me to stop it.
Presumably starting poin is breach of covenant but what should we expect if the application is granted?
Neighbours (4 bed detached) haven’t moved in yet but there is a notice outside the house for change of use to “Care home for young people (C2)”.
Wife has gone ballistic and expects me to stop it.
Presumably starting poin is breach of covenant but what should we expect if the application is granted?
The covenant is seperate to the planning issue. Permission can be granted regardless of the legal covenant, although inportantly doesnt supersede it.
Have a look at the application. See what they are proposing, how many kids, how many staff. If it's in keeping with that you'd expect from a normal, large family home then there's no chance it won't be approved.
If there's lots of staff coming and goings then you could argue it would cause disturbance and impact your amenity. I'd be submitting some comments along those lines.
Have a look at the application. See what they are proposing, how many kids, how many staff. If it's in keeping with that you'd expect from a normal, large family home then there's no chance it won't be approved.
If there's lots of staff coming and goings then you could argue it would cause disturbance and impact your amenity. I'd be submitting some comments along those lines.
GMT13 said:
The covenant is seperate to the planning issue. Permission can be granted regardless of the legal covenant, although inportantly doesnt supersede it.
Have a look at the application. See what they are proposing, how many kids, how many staff. If it's in keeping with that you'd expect from a normal, large family home then there's no chance it won't be approved.
If there's lots of staff coming and goings then you could argue it would cause disturbance and impact your amenity. I'd be submitting some comments along those lines.
This is sensible advice.Have a look at the application. See what they are proposing, how many kids, how many staff. If it's in keeping with that you'd expect from a normal, large family home then there's no chance it won't be approved.
If there's lots of staff coming and goings then you could argue it would cause disturbance and impact your amenity. I'd be submitting some comments along those lines.
You need to speak to the developer about the covenant and your lawyer. Action needs to be taken quickly as you have to minimise the losses of he person breaching the covenant. Basically as soon as you are aware of a potential breach, you need to act.
Planning needs objections based on policy, a decent planning consultant will do it for a relatively small cost
This could potentially be a very unfortunate situation. As GMT13 points out, the existence of covenant won’t be a material planning consideration, and it would likely be up to the developer to enforce that depending on how it is written (good luck with that).
I was a councillor and deputy chair of the planning committee for a Scottish LA for five years, and I recall a similar, and very contentious case. This came under the social work appeal system, but essentially the parents of a profoundly disabled young person had extended and modified their home so that it could accommodate more residents on a commercial basis. This operated for a while then they sought to extend it further, which was the subject of the appeal. It was so incredible contentious, and the council staff were very much of the opinion that it needed to go somewhere and the neighbours were being unreasonable. I took a different view based on the evidence. The house was a typical new build in very close proximity to its neighbours. The neighbours had recorded the residents in the garden as evidence, and it really was quite distressing (screaming/shouting/swearing etc) and had a massive impact on their amenity and they didn’t want to expose their own children to it) Of course, you have to balance the needs of the disabled young adults, but this was never the right place to have a facility due the layout, and that’s before you consider the constant traffic movements at all times. The view from the staff was really hostile to the complainers, which I felt was unjustified and they would probably feel exactly the same way if it was their neighbours. In the end it was turned down by two votes to one.
I would definitely take some advice on this because it has the potential to really impact you OP.
I was a councillor and deputy chair of the planning committee for a Scottish LA for five years, and I recall a similar, and very contentious case. This came under the social work appeal system, but essentially the parents of a profoundly disabled young person had extended and modified their home so that it could accommodate more residents on a commercial basis. This operated for a while then they sought to extend it further, which was the subject of the appeal. It was so incredible contentious, and the council staff were very much of the opinion that it needed to go somewhere and the neighbours were being unreasonable. I took a different view based on the evidence. The house was a typical new build in very close proximity to its neighbours. The neighbours had recorded the residents in the garden as evidence, and it really was quite distressing (screaming/shouting/swearing etc) and had a massive impact on their amenity and they didn’t want to expose their own children to it) Of course, you have to balance the needs of the disabled young adults, but this was never the right place to have a facility due the layout, and that’s before you consider the constant traffic movements at all times. The view from the staff was really hostile to the complainers, which I felt was unjustified and they would probably feel exactly the same way if it was their neighbours. In the end it was turned down by two votes to one.
I would definitely take some advice on this because it has the potential to really impact you OP.
The covenant and planning are completely separate as others have said. Not worth referring the covenant in any objection.
Is this a brand new house? Presumably the application is for C3 to C2. But if it's not been lived in, it's arguably not being used for C3 use as a dwelling, so you can't change a use that doesn't exist. They can just submit a full application instead, but that would be more complicated and might scare them off?
Also, and you won't want to hear this, there is case law to say that a change of use application isn't needed if it's being occupied with live in carers in a very similar way to a family home, because the change of use is not 'material'.
Overall though, you probably just need to object for the reasons you are concerned about.
Is this a brand new house? Presumably the application is for C3 to C2. But if it's not been lived in, it's arguably not being used for C3 use as a dwelling, so you can't change a use that doesn't exist. They can just submit a full application instead, but that would be more complicated and might scare them off?
Also, and you won't want to hear this, there is case law to say that a change of use application isn't needed if it's being occupied with live in carers in a very similar way to a family home, because the change of use is not 'material'.
Overall though, you probably just need to object for the reasons you are concerned about.
Edited by covmutley on Wednesday 4th March 16:08
Reminds me of when we made an application to build a home for a few disabled adults in Gloucestershire
A neighbour (a medical doctor of all people) stood up at committee and said "I don't want people like that looking at me or living near me"
These were mainly people with Downs Syndrome or Cerebral Palsy
A neighbour (a medical doctor of all people) stood up at committee and said "I don't want people like that looking at me or living near me"
These were mainly people with Downs Syndrome or Cerebral Palsy
A house near me was granted this status - it involved one young person living there and what looked like a number of carers visiting at set times. No more disturbance (and nothing to complain about) compared to any other residential property. In fact I'd swap several of these 'care homes' for the neighbour with a drill and reciprocating saw.
We had a very similar situation. Covenant in place. Planning was applied for after occupancy and despite all of the issues re parking, noise etc. it was granted. Local councillors were useless.
The covenant saved the day but it was a long and expensive struggle. About 30+ residents formed a significant “fighting fund” with solicitors, barristers etc. I’m talking serious cash - exposure up to around £75k plus.
In the end the applicants case was withdrawn on the day before court. We paid some good faith contribution to the applicants.
During the period of occupation life was hell. Police attendance most days, ambulance regularly and even the police helicopter on more than one occasion to track down absconders.
Of course your situation may and hopefully differ.
The covenant saved the day but it was a long and expensive struggle. About 30+ residents formed a significant “fighting fund” with solicitors, barristers etc. I’m talking serious cash - exposure up to around £75k plus.
In the end the applicants case was withdrawn on the day before court. We paid some good faith contribution to the applicants.
During the period of occupation life was hell. Police attendance most days, ambulance regularly and even the police helicopter on more than one occasion to track down absconders.
Of course your situation may and hopefully differ.
A change from C3 to C2 doesn't necessarily require planning permission... if there is no 'material change of use' (emphasis on material) then it might not require permission.
However (despite Appeal decisions and Barrister opinions supporting that there is no material change) there are an increasing number of LPA's (Local Planning Authorities) that are not prepared to accept a Lawful Development Certificate application route and ask for a planning application. Birmingham want full applications but Hinckley doesn't... at the moment.
It might depend on where you live and what the position of the LPA is.
As a start, I would search your LPA's portal for 'C2' and see if they come up as planning applications or lawful development certificate applications. If it is the latter, then unfortunately you nor anyone else has a say in the process.
Similar situation regarding HMO's, again to by-pass the LDC argument, a number of LPA's are issuing Article 4 directions, to 'cover off' the automatic route of changing from a residential dwelling to an HMO. (Rugby for example)
However (despite Appeal decisions and Barrister opinions supporting that there is no material change) there are an increasing number of LPA's (Local Planning Authorities) that are not prepared to accept a Lawful Development Certificate application route and ask for a planning application. Birmingham want full applications but Hinckley doesn't... at the moment.
It might depend on where you live and what the position of the LPA is.
As a start, I would search your LPA's portal for 'C2' and see if they come up as planning applications or lawful development certificate applications. If it is the latter, then unfortunately you nor anyone else has a say in the process.
Similar situation regarding HMO's, again to by-pass the LDC argument, a number of LPA's are issuing Article 4 directions, to 'cover off' the automatic route of changing from a residential dwelling to an HMO. (Rugby for example)
ssray said:
Local to.me a similar plan was rejected on the grounds of parking spaces
Same here - in fact there have been two local to us. One was declined based on the parking issue and iirc the second one was declined on the fact that there would be too many carers living in 24 hours a day. Get advice as to the best way to object would be my suggestion as well. Also try and get the other neighbours involved, whilst accepting that you are the newbies.
The first thing is who owns the covenant.
If it is the developer then only they can enforce it.
Planning as above is not related. However planning policy does apply and if a new HOUSING estate than it is for housing not a business use.
The local plan etc will help you. As may the original permission an officers report.
Covenants are enforceable ( as an estate we are enforcing one now ) but take effort.
If you have just bought off the developer I would also discuss work your lawyers. When did the application go in? Should you lawyer have seen it. Did th le developer know ( or should have known ) and did they not declare it ?
If it is the developer then only they can enforce it.
Planning as above is not related. However planning policy does apply and if a new HOUSING estate than it is for housing not a business use.
The local plan etc will help you. As may the original permission an officers report.
Covenants are enforceable ( as an estate we are enforcing one now ) but take effort.
If you have just bought off the developer I would also discuss work your lawyers. When did the application go in? Should you lawyer have seen it. Did th le developer know ( or should have known ) and did they not declare it ?
Jeremy-75qq8 said:
The first thing is who owns the covenant.
If it is the developer then only they can enforce it.
Planning as above is not related. However planning policy does apply and if a new HOUSING estate than it is for housing not a business use.
The local plan etc will help you. As may the original permission an officers report.
Covenants are enforceable ( as an estate we are enforcing one now ) but take effort.
If you have just bought off the developer I would also discuss work your lawyers. When did the application go in? Should you lawyer have seen it. Did th le developer know ( or should have known ) and did they not declare it ?
If it’s a “scheme of development” covenant then plot buyers can enforce it. Op needs legal advice. If it is the developer then only they can enforce it.
Planning as above is not related. However planning policy does apply and if a new HOUSING estate than it is for housing not a business use.
The local plan etc will help you. As may the original permission an officers report.
Covenants are enforceable ( as an estate we are enforcing one now ) but take effort.
If you have just bought off the developer I would also discuss work your lawyers. When did the application go in? Should you lawyer have seen it. Did th le developer know ( or should have known ) and did they not declare it ?
bigpriest said:
A house near me was granted this status - it involved one young person living there and what looked like a number of carers visiting at set times. No more disturbance (and nothing to complain about) compared to any other residential property. In fact I'd swap several of these 'care homes' for the neighbour with a drill and reciprocating saw.
I guess it depends what the normal level of activity is, and, being a new development, the OP won't have baseline for that. Guy across the road from us is having 24x7 care at home and in our very quiet road it's a noticeable step up in activity. It's incredible how the carers spread their cars out along the road, as if they don't want to park outside the house they're going to (no residents routinely park on the road, so it's not like they need to leave space for a doctor / ambulance etc). Based on having lived on a new estate once, I could easily imagine cars parked willy nilly would be a nightmare if there were mutliple carers on duty at the same time and then x2 at changeover time.
blueg33 said:
If it s a scheme of development covenant then plot buyers can enforce it. Op needs legal advice.
Interesting I never knew that. Sadly Google says they are rare and tricky to get right which is a shame as they would be more in line with the general view that a covenant stops things happing which in the most general of terms is rarely true unless the covenant owner can and is motivated to enforce it which many are not. Jeremy-75qq8 said:
blueg33 said:
If it s a scheme of development covenant then plot buyers can enforce it. Op needs legal advice.
Interesting I never knew that. Sadly Google says they are rare and tricky to get right which is a shame as they would be more in line with the general view that a covenant stops things happing which in the most general of terms is rarely true unless the covenant owner can and is motivated to enforce it which many are not. As a developer, I have also enforced the more normal covenants like no caravans, open front gardens, and usage. You know, the ones the armchair experts in O ok H say are unenforceable.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff