Risk Appetite With Planning
Discussion
Have been a member on here for over 20 years but wanted to post this anonymously for obvious reasons. I’m aware of the responses this might get but I’m just looking to get some thoughts on the risk involved rather than debate the rights and wrongs.
I built my house 5 years ago, it was an old farm yard which we gained permission for 4 new build houses plus one for ourselves.
4 of the properties were sold 5 years ago with no issues and are still occupied. On the accepted plans for this part of the development were various trees and wild planted areas. Most of these we tarmacked as extra parking, drives etc and we didn’t actually get around to doing any tree or wild flower planting at all. This has never been mentioned or cropped up as a problem. We did have the council enforcement round 4 years ago to look at an agricultural building that we left standing as a garage for one of the properties (it wasn’t on the accepted plans) They agreed that it was ok to leave it.
My question is about my property; the property sits in 4 acres of land. On the plans it had a small area marked as patio and garden. About an acre of this land was concrete from the old farm yard, about a quarter of this was a barn which the footprint of my house was built on. (permission for knock down and new build) some of this hard standing on the plans was driveway and parking. The rest just had pictures of random trees and a some wild flowers, there was a small note saying removal of hard standing on the plans. We didn’t take any of this hard standing up and have utilised it over the last 5 years as a massive parking and turning area.
I want to build an extra storage garage or two on this area. The size and type would fall under PD. My concern is that I assume this part of the land is still classed as agricultural, so I believe we have no PD rights? Taking on board all of the above I also assume trying to get proper planning permission would be rather foolish? Clearly no one is fussed about our lack of landscaping so I wouldn’t want to draw attention to it. If I construct something that would be fine under normal PD do you think anyone would feel the need to question it? If I was to buy a property that had a large grass area what would stop me concreting some or most of it?
We are very rural with no passing traffic apart from one footpath. The reality is I don’t think anyone would notice anything we do so its probably a non issue. However, I wanted to understand how risky my position is. All of the properties are correct to the planning its just the landscaping that hasn’t been followed. There were no conditions attached to original planning consent just a straight forward approval and without the removal of PD.
I built my house 5 years ago, it was an old farm yard which we gained permission for 4 new build houses plus one for ourselves.
4 of the properties were sold 5 years ago with no issues and are still occupied. On the accepted plans for this part of the development were various trees and wild planted areas. Most of these we tarmacked as extra parking, drives etc and we didn’t actually get around to doing any tree or wild flower planting at all. This has never been mentioned or cropped up as a problem. We did have the council enforcement round 4 years ago to look at an agricultural building that we left standing as a garage for one of the properties (it wasn’t on the accepted plans) They agreed that it was ok to leave it.
My question is about my property; the property sits in 4 acres of land. On the plans it had a small area marked as patio and garden. About an acre of this land was concrete from the old farm yard, about a quarter of this was a barn which the footprint of my house was built on. (permission for knock down and new build) some of this hard standing on the plans was driveway and parking. The rest just had pictures of random trees and a some wild flowers, there was a small note saying removal of hard standing on the plans. We didn’t take any of this hard standing up and have utilised it over the last 5 years as a massive parking and turning area.
I want to build an extra storage garage or two on this area. The size and type would fall under PD. My concern is that I assume this part of the land is still classed as agricultural, so I believe we have no PD rights? Taking on board all of the above I also assume trying to get proper planning permission would be rather foolish? Clearly no one is fussed about our lack of landscaping so I wouldn’t want to draw attention to it. If I construct something that would be fine under normal PD do you think anyone would feel the need to question it? If I was to buy a property that had a large grass area what would stop me concreting some or most of it?
We are very rural with no passing traffic apart from one footpath. The reality is I don’t think anyone would notice anything we do so its probably a non issue. However, I wanted to understand how risky my position is. All of the properties are correct to the planning its just the landscaping that hasn’t been followed. There were no conditions attached to original planning consent just a straight forward approval and without the removal of PD.
westernboys said:
I assume this part of the land is still classed as agricultural, so I believe we have no PD rights?
What do you mean by "classed as agricultural"? Are you referring to the "local plan" or to something more specific?Fairly obviously there is one sort of Permitted Development when land is in agricultural use (erection of farm buildings etc) and a different form of Permitted Development when a property is residential (extensions, garages etc).
Panamax said:
What do you mean by "classed as agricultural"? Are you referring to the "local plan" or to something more specific?
Fairly obviously there is one sort of Permitted Development when land is in agricultural use (erection of farm buildings etc) and a different form of Permitted Development when a property is residential (extensions, garages etc).
It was agricultural land before. The only change of use would have been to the driveways, houses and parking areas. To be fair it doesn't actually mention this in the application or acceptance.Fairly obviously there is one sort of Permitted Development when land is in agricultural use (erection of farm buildings etc) and a different form of Permitted Development when a property is residential (extensions, garages etc).
westernboys said:
I want to build an extra storage garage or two on this area. The size and type would fall under PD. My concern is that I assume this part of the land is still classed as agricultural, so I believe we have no PD rights?
A 28-day shed for your tractor/ag use? Or a garage to go with a house?Depending on how the earlier development took place and how much land you have, may have ag PD rights, resi ones, or none at all.
LooneyTunes said:
westernboys said:
I want to build an extra storage garage or two on this area. The size and type would fall under PD. My concern is that I assume this part of the land is still classed as agricultural, so I believe we have no PD rights?
A 28-day shed for your tractor/ag use? Or a garage to go with a house?Depending on how the earlier development took place and how much land you have, may have ag PD rights, resi ones, or none at all.
Its just over 4 acres in total, It was a farm yard that was accepted for full demolish and new build planning. None of the PD rights were removed. This was something that they originally wanted to do and it ended up not forming a part of the final acceptance luckily.
I'm not in a hugely dissimilar situation but I've been here for thirty years.
Local authorities vary. Ours don't investigate anything unless there is a complaint. The last issue I had was a complaint when I put a new access in, it took two years from the complaint to their first letter. Easily delt with by a retrospective application. I wouldn't have been able to do what I did via planning permission. Easter Weekend during covid seemed a perfect time to do it but one passer by took exception!
I've had no issue with using a former arable field into garden, extra hardstanding outside my curtilage. etc.
Depends on your appetite for risk and whether you're likely to want to sell. I don't want to sell and prefer to ask forgiveness rather than permission. The three issues I've had have been ably delt with by a planning consultant and this has worked favourably for me.
Local authorities vary. Ours don't investigate anything unless there is a complaint. The last issue I had was a complaint when I put a new access in, it took two years from the complaint to their first letter. Easily delt with by a retrospective application. I wouldn't have been able to do what I did via planning permission. Easter Weekend during covid seemed a perfect time to do it but one passer by took exception!
I've had no issue with using a former arable field into garden, extra hardstanding outside my curtilage. etc.
Depends on your appetite for risk and whether you're likely to want to sell. I don't want to sell and prefer to ask forgiveness rather than permission. The three issues I've had have been ably delt with by a planning consultant and this has worked favourably for me.
Well you know it needs planning, so it's a risk. If noticed, they might make you apply retrospectively.
As for the risk about the tarmac area, uts hard to say without seeing plans and conditions etc. but I suppose the worst case is they make you do it as per the consent, bit I would guess that is probably small. First, because a lot of time has passed so you could argue its not important. Second, you don't have to implement development within a certain timeframe. There are often soft landscaping conditions that say planting to be done in the first season after commencing, but that might not be the same for the hard landscaping.
But as I say, it's impossible to advise without all the facts
As for the risk about the tarmac area, uts hard to say without seeing plans and conditions etc. but I suppose the worst case is they make you do it as per the consent, bit I would guess that is probably small. First, because a lot of time has passed so you could argue its not important. Second, you don't have to implement development within a certain timeframe. There are often soft landscaping conditions that say planting to be done in the first season after commencing, but that might not be the same for the hard landscaping.
But as I say, it's impossible to advise without all the facts
westernboys said:
LooneyTunes said:
westernboys said:
I want to build an extra storage garage or two on this area. The size and type would fall under PD. My concern is that I assume this part of the land is still classed as agricultural, so I believe we have no PD rights?
A 28-day shed for your tractor/ag use? Or a garage to go with a house?Depending on how the earlier development took place and how much land you have, may have ag PD rights, resi ones, or none at all.
Its just over 4 acres in total, It was a farm yard that was accepted for full demolish and new build planning. None of the PD rights were removed. This was something that they originally wanted to do and it ended up not forming a part of the final acceptance luckily.
The risk of doing it without planning all depends on how likely you think it is to get objections. Much depends on how you get on with neighbours.
In-law’s neighbour did a sneaky barn conversion that he lives in. No PP. Nice chap, no complaints made in >20 years.
His neighbour deviated from planning permission, lots of reports and aggro. Mainly because they had managed to p
s off the locals when they moved in. I’ve had something similar, we eventually resolved it with an uncontested retrospective application. One way to consider things is; would the original application have been rejected if the current landscaping have been on the original application?
I find that the architects tend to tidy up things on the drawings that are not necessarily fundamental to planning approval or policy.
How difficult would it be to submit an application to bring the drawings into line with the current site? That way, assuming you get approval, you are cleared for a PD development on the rest of the site?
I find that the architects tend to tidy up things on the drawings that are not necessarily fundamental to planning approval or policy.
How difficult would it be to submit an application to bring the drawings into line with the current site? That way, assuming you get approval, you are cleared for a PD development on the rest of the site?
Best case - nothing happens
Worst case - it gets taken down
Middle ground...
The 'small area marked as patio and garden' is the residential curtilage associated with that dwelling (so anything outside of this area will have remained as agricultural use i.e. what it was originally), so you could build upon this area as the PD rights have not been removed.
But, it won't be in the right place... so IF you were minded to submit an application, then one argument is that you could put it 'here' (in the curtilage) but it would be detrimental to the occupiers of the dwelling; reduction of private amenity, etc. so putting it 'elsewhere' might overcome such issues. More importantly you could argue that it gives no greater harm on the Green Belt/open countryside.
There is no difference to how an application is handled if it is retrospective (apparently) however as it wouldn't be PD (outside of curtilage) and if you are over 25m2 then you might face 'biodiversity', requiring a preliminary ecological assessment (PEA) and then BNG (biodiversity net gain) calculations to show that you are enhancing the biodiversity by at least 10%.
However, there is no BNG requirement for retrospective applications... 'possibly' why the 'fine upstanding pillars of the community' do work first and then apply for it, retrospectively... no costly ecologists, no surveys, no enhancement, etc. Submit Friday pm and go onto site Friday evening...
The bigger question is how would the neighbours respond? It only takes one to moan or tell enforcement and you are then submitting an application...
If you 'wing it', then you are looking at 10 years before it becomes immune from enforcement, so if you are thinking of selling in that period then it will be raised at that time.
Worst case - it gets taken down
Middle ground...
The 'small area marked as patio and garden' is the residential curtilage associated with that dwelling (so anything outside of this area will have remained as agricultural use i.e. what it was originally), so you could build upon this area as the PD rights have not been removed.
But, it won't be in the right place... so IF you were minded to submit an application, then one argument is that you could put it 'here' (in the curtilage) but it would be detrimental to the occupiers of the dwelling; reduction of private amenity, etc. so putting it 'elsewhere' might overcome such issues. More importantly you could argue that it gives no greater harm on the Green Belt/open countryside.
There is no difference to how an application is handled if it is retrospective (apparently) however as it wouldn't be PD (outside of curtilage) and if you are over 25m2 then you might face 'biodiversity', requiring a preliminary ecological assessment (PEA) and then BNG (biodiversity net gain) calculations to show that you are enhancing the biodiversity by at least 10%.
However, there is no BNG requirement for retrospective applications... 'possibly' why the 'fine upstanding pillars of the community' do work first and then apply for it, retrospectively... no costly ecologists, no surveys, no enhancement, etc. Submit Friday pm and go onto site Friday evening...
The bigger question is how would the neighbours respond? It only takes one to moan or tell enforcement and you are then submitting an application...
If you 'wing it', then you are looking at 10 years before it becomes immune from enforcement, so if you are thinking of selling in that period then it will be raised at that time.
Edited by andya7 on Saturday 4th April 15:57
Familymad said:
Someone will notice.
Shortest post on the thread but not to be ignored!Most councils will not interfere on stuff like this unless they are prompted to by a complaint but no matter how rural and isolated you think you are, some t
t will always think it’s their job to report you. That said, even a correctly reported breach of planning does not require enforcement action, they can investigate and decide not to take action. Or as others have found, they may be cooperative with a retrospective application.
However, if the building(s) would fall within PD for a domestic property any application would probably be to define the domestic boundaries of the property and this may not actually require a planning application, it can be just a confirmation from the council that they agree with your assertion of where the historical boundaries lie.
Of course if your suggested area is blatantly agricultural then it would need an application and expansion of domestic land into agricultural curtilage is something they tend to push back against.
Given the recent planning history at your property it is surprising that they did not define an exact domestic boundary when granting permission but the levels of competence within planning departments can be scarily low.
Steve H said:
the levels of competence within planning departments can be scarily low.
Quite... 12 weeks to validate an application at the moment with one LPA... (for anyone unsure as to what that means, basically it is a check to make sure that all the information that is required has been submitted with the application. So, in reality (for 90% of applications) it is a 10 minute job...)
andya7 said:
Steve H said:
the levels of competence within planning departments can be scarily low.
Quite... 12 weeks to validate an application at the moment with one LPA... (for anyone unsure as to what that means, basically it is a check to make sure that all the information that is required has been submitted with the application. So, in reality (for 90% of applications) it is a 10 minute job...)
Like much local government, NHS, and other centrally funded organisations, it’s as much about being self-serving as incompetent for a lot of the uselessness.
And don’t get me started on how 8 week targets are a long lost memory but absolutely nothing to do with entire departments being WFH now
.Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff