shepherd's huts - what is the score
Discussion
hi all,
wondering if any of you knowledgeable planning people can explain what the score is with shepherd's huts.
I have a really nice countryside outlook from my house which is one of the reasons for living here. but my neighbour last week stuck a very expensive shepherd's hut in his field which is right in the field of view from my garden and house windows.
the shepherd's hut itself is fairly unobtrusive but obviously the outlook changes if a noisy family with kids is staying in the shepherd's hut for a long weekend with all the electric lights blazing, a barbecue, a trampoline and a noisy party!
for context there are three houses at the top of the valley all with views down the valley towards the shepherd's hut and one of the three houses is owned by the guy that has just put the shepherd's hut in his field.
he has lived here for over 25 years without the hut. but all of his kids have now grown up and moved away and his wife died a couple of years ago so he recently told us he is planning to sell the house.
my understanding is he plans to keep the field and the shepherd's hut is for him to visit and stay in or his daughters and their kids. but he recently added that he will install a second shepherd hut and plans to rent them out when he's not using them!
so essentially he has enjoyed the uninterrupted view whilst he lived here but he's negatively altering the view for the three houses once he sells up.
he plans to connect the shepherd's huts to the electric mains as there are mains cables running overhead. my understanding is the hut is completely self-contained living with a bathroom and kitchen.
my fear is that he is moving away but leaving the rest of us with a view that will now look on to a campsite.
is there anything I can do to prevent this or is it a case of sucking it up as a first world problem?
wondering if any of you knowledgeable planning people can explain what the score is with shepherd's huts.
I have a really nice countryside outlook from my house which is one of the reasons for living here. but my neighbour last week stuck a very expensive shepherd's hut in his field which is right in the field of view from my garden and house windows.
the shepherd's hut itself is fairly unobtrusive but obviously the outlook changes if a noisy family with kids is staying in the shepherd's hut for a long weekend with all the electric lights blazing, a barbecue, a trampoline and a noisy party!
for context there are three houses at the top of the valley all with views down the valley towards the shepherd's hut and one of the three houses is owned by the guy that has just put the shepherd's hut in his field.
he has lived here for over 25 years without the hut. but all of his kids have now grown up and moved away and his wife died a couple of years ago so he recently told us he is planning to sell the house.
my understanding is he plans to keep the field and the shepherd's hut is for him to visit and stay in or his daughters and their kids. but he recently added that he will install a second shepherd hut and plans to rent them out when he's not using them!
so essentially he has enjoyed the uninterrupted view whilst he lived here but he's negatively altering the view for the three houses once he sells up.
he plans to connect the shepherd's huts to the electric mains as there are mains cables running overhead. my understanding is the hut is completely self-contained living with a bathroom and kitchen.
my fear is that he is moving away but leaving the rest of us with a view that will now look on to a campsite.
is there anything I can do to prevent this or is it a case of sucking it up as a first world problem?
Aiui its not the actual Hut that needs pp but more so the intended use.
The right to a view isn't necessarily considered a right by planners as with the other used" issue" of privacy.
People putting one in their garden for their occasional use wouldn't need pp especially if incidental to their house and also bear in mind some come on wheels etc so are considered mobile anyway.
However putting up 2 and indeed connecting to the mains does sound rather more permanent doesn't it ?!
I think it would be worthwhile having at look at some of the Shepherds huts websites and looking at their FAQ's.
Your problem is though what exactly can you do about it ?
If pp needed then an application would need to be made to the LA at which point you could absolutely object in however strong terms you wish.
The right to a view isn't necessarily considered a right by planners as with the other used" issue" of privacy.
People putting one in their garden for their occasional use wouldn't need pp especially if incidental to their house and also bear in mind some come on wheels etc so are considered mobile anyway.
However putting up 2 and indeed connecting to the mains does sound rather more permanent doesn't it ?!
I think it would be worthwhile having at look at some of the Shepherds huts websites and looking at their FAQ's.
Your problem is though what exactly can you do about it ?
If pp needed then an application would need to be made to the LA at which point you could absolutely object in however strong terms you wish.
alscar said:
If that is on agricultural land as opposed to his garden then at the very least I would think it needs a change of use application ?
On the other hand if that is already part of his garden then based on that one hut I would doubt he needs pp.
As it's moveable it's pretty easy to play the game even it's on agricultural land. It can be used for 28 days without PP and it's pretty difficult to enforce in any eventOn the other hand if that is already part of his garden then based on that one hut I would doubt he needs pp.
It looks like they are building something a little more permanent on the left of the photo as we look and that would be more difficult to avoid having to get PP.
Nicetobenice said:
alscar said:
If that is on agricultural land as opposed to his garden then at the very least I would think it needs a change of use application ?
On the other hand if that is already part of his garden then based on that one hut I would doubt he needs pp.
As it's moveable it's pretty easy to play the game even it's on agricultural land. It can be used for 28 days without PP and it's pretty difficult to enforce in any eventOn the other hand if that is already part of his garden then based on that one hut I would doubt he needs pp.
It looks like they are building something a little more permanent on the left of the photo as we look and that would be more difficult to avoid having to get PP.
Agree about the construction to the left too - siting 2 huts goes beyond personal use so still might "just" need change of use which could of course then lead to full pp should the LA start to get difficult.
Either way of course doesn't really help OP for now as assume " grassing up " said neighbour at this stage might indeed cause nothing whatsoever to happen or they might get a visit ?
WH16 said:
It's hardly an eyesore. At least it isn't some awful white caravan.
Oh, and never buy a house for the view unless you own the view.
And as the neighbour won't be living there he has numerous lawful options that would be an order of magnitude worse if he gets the hump over the neighbours complaining. Oh, and never buy a house for the view unless you own the view.
Nicetobenice said:
And as the neighbour won't be living there he has numerous lawful options that would be an order of magnitude worse if he gets the hump over the neighbours complaining.
Yup its a tough balance for the Op to try and navigate through.Would also depend on whether or not that field has separate road access which presumably it does otherwise little point in retaining if he sells the house unless there is a legal right of way with the house etc ?
WH16 said:
It's hardly an eyesore. At least it isn't some awful white caravan.
Oh, and never buy a house for the view unless you own the view.
Hence my separate road access q as otherwise could be a lot of those white caravans if the conversation's with the neighbour and even LA go badly ?!Oh, and never buy a house for the view unless you own the view.
Might end up being the point actually - what would be the least worst option OP ?
Thats going to need pp all day long. If the plan is to have running water and water waste disposal at the hut(s) that’s probably going to also require approval for a septic tank and the soakaway which will then lead on to questions from the planners about how temporary this really is, plus possibly environmental issues doing that. They wont want to approve anything permanent in the green belt like that so I would expect the idea to fail at that point.
Is the hut movable, ie on wheels ?
Edited to add, just noticed the photo, I could hardly make out the hut
but looks to be on wheels or at least raised and not deemed permanent.
Know someone who installed a pod but on a trailer so not classed as permanent, still has to go through planning to be used for living in, but being moveable seemingly is easier to get approved.
This is in Scotland though, and up here each council area seems to have differing views on what is acceptable and approved.
Edited to add, just noticed the photo, I could hardly make out the hut
but looks to be on wheels or at least raised and not deemed permanent. Know someone who installed a pod but on a trailer so not classed as permanent, still has to go through planning to be used for living in, but being moveable seemingly is easier to get approved.
This is in Scotland though, and up here each council area seems to have differing views on what is acceptable and approved.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff