Detached annex use

[jimmyd123]

I am looking at a house built on green belt land. It already has a large detached annex built, which consists of two rooms each 30' x 20' and a double garage.

The building is currently deemed to be a games room, despite one room having a bed in, supposedly you are entitled to have a nap after your workout. The two rooms have large windows and doors to them over looking the garden.

Ideally I am thinking my son could live in this annex, but I have been told this will not pass planning (the building has already passed planning as it is). I do not want the building to be classed as a seperate property, just have the right for my son to sleep, cook, etc. a self contained unit.

Can anyone offer any advice on what makes a building habitable in this way? Or in it's current state, what the building can be used for. I see little reason for my son not to be able to use it in this way rather than live in the main house, and use the annex 23 hours per day.

I am trying to do my own research, but was hoping someone might be able to give me a kick in the right direction.

[herbialfa]

I don't see a problem.

As long as the annexe has a small kitchenette, small bathroom, bedroom & lounge then fair dooooos!

Its an existing structure which helps!

Talk to your L.A. first.

[jimmyd123]

I'd like to do the place properly if it's going to be done. Ideally donverting the garage to living space as well. A proper kitchen, probably two bedrooms, etc. No changes need to be made outside, although would like to replace the garage door with windows/doors, but this isn't a deal breaker, the outside can remain looking the same if needed. I should add that this building is less than 10 years old, so there is nothing historical to destroy.

The L.A is the next stop, but I'd like to get it straight in my mind what the difference is between turning this into an habitable annex, rather than a seperate house or as it is currently, games room/ workshop, a seperate house will defiantely be rejected, and I've been warned the annex will too, but I'm not clear on what grounds.

Common sense would suggest it should be fine as this is virtually how it's used now, no (or very small) extra energy or space will be used, and the occupancy of the property will not be increasing.

[Defcon5]

How would they ever find out?

[jimmyd123]

When the whole house was re-done, the garage was extended, that is why it is so large, and this went to appeal, which the council lost. So I believe they keep a close eye on it, just waiting to pounce on any little thing. So everything needs to be done above board.

[russ_a]

I think if it has it's own front door and bathroom then it is treated as a seperate dwelling and therefore liable for council tax, utilities etc etc.

My friends boss did this for his daughter, someone contacted the council and they hit them for council tax straight away.

[GuinnessMK]

russ_a said:

I think if it has it's own front door and bathroom then it is treated as a seperate dwelling and therefore liable for council tax, utilities etc etc.

My friends boss did this for his daughter, someone contacted the council and they hit them for council tax straight away.

Not quite. We are looking at a property at the moment, which has a separate 2 bed annexe, complete with own bathroom, kitchen and front door. However, the owner has just been refused planning permission to split it off into a separate property.

[Pupp]

If it's used as living space that's ancillary to the principal dwelling, then there should be no planning difficulty. The problem from the planners' point of view arises when the annexe is brought into use as a separate unit of habitable accommodation. No reason why a Section 106 obligation cannot be entered into where the house owner covenants that the annexe will never be occupied except ancillary to the house (this is effectively a contractual commitment that binds and runs with the land so that it encumbers future owners too).