4 year rule - Build without planning?????

[IceBoy]

Hi All,

I was shocked to hear my friend telling me that he could build an "out building" without any planning permission and then if he occupied the said "out building" for 4 years, he could apply for it to get some sort of certificate of lawfulness or usage as a separate dwelling?

Is he mad? I thought that was the very reason we had planning laws and planning permission?

IceBoy

[KrazyIvan]

Circumnavigating planning permission is one thing, building regs are another altogether.

He may well be able to build an out building with out the planning permission, but he won't be able to live in it. Plus he will need to make sure that at no point does any one shop him into the planning office if he does live in it.

In short........it's unlikely his plan will work the way he thinks it's going to.

[13m]

IceBoy said:

Hi All,

I was shocked to hear my friend telling me that he could build an "out building" without any planning permission and then if he occupied the said "out building" for 4 years, he could apply for it to get some sort of certificate of lawfulness or usage as a separate dwelling?

Is he mad? I thought that was the very reason we had planning laws and planning permission?

IceBoy

Hmmm. I'd say he's wrong.

He could build an outbuilding, which may in fact be Permitted Development if it's to the rear of the property and within certain limits. If however it was unlawful (and not hidden deliberately) and he got away with it for four years the Local Authority could not pursue enforcement action.

However, he would have an outbuilding.

If he wanted then to obtain change of use to residential he would need to use it as residential for 10 years. Undetected.

What he needs to do is build himself a house and get away with it for four years.

[13m]

KrazyIvan said:

Circumnavigating planning permission is one thing, building regs are another altogether.

He may well be able to build an out building with out the planning permission, but he won't be able to live in it. Plus he will need to make sure that at no point does any one shop him into the planning office if he does live in it.

In short........it's unlikely his plan will work the way he thinks it's going to.

Yes building regs are quite another thing. They are only enforceable for TWO years.

[IceBoy]

Yes, he mentioned permitted development which I think I understand but what I think he is saying he can do is just build something smallish, like a 2 bedroom bungalow and if nobody notices, which I'm not sure is possible!!!!!! He can get this certificate and it will become a separate dwelling.

This is nuts.

Iceboy

[BoRED S2upid]

Is this along the same lines as obtaining rights on common land? A loop hole. My law lecturer was very happy that he had fenced in 10ft of land at the bottom of the garden nobody noticed and after 10 years he legally had a massive garden.

[13m]

IceBoy said:

Yes, he mentioned permitted development which I think I understand but what I think he is saying he can do is just build something smallish, like a 2 bedroom bungalow and if nobody notices, which I'm not sure is possible!!!!!! He can get this certificate and it will become a separate dwelling.

This is nuts.

Iceboy

He's right. That's the law.

But if someone notices within 4 years he'll need to apply for retrospective planning permission. Which he may well get if the property and location are not contentious.

[Undirection]

That's what I understand but there's a famous case of a farmer who hid a huge house he built behind bales of hay for over 4 years and then tried the 4-year thing but the Council would have none of it because he'd acted in a deceptive manner and told him it had to be demolished. Not sure if it ever was but he was a first class idiot for doing that. It was a lovely house but you can't just do what you want.

EDIT: Dodgy fker now taking the piss after selling it to someone who allowed him to still live in it and now is claiming wildlife protection!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11984...

Edited by Undirection on Wednesday 25th November 11:57

[The Beast of Codfin]

BoRED S2upid said:

Is this along the same lines as obtaining rights on common land? A loop hole. My law lecturer was very happy that he had fenced in 10ft of land at the bottom of the garden nobody noticed and after 10 years he legally had a massive garden.

How does 10ft make a massive garden?

[Dave_ST220]

The Beast of Codfin said:

BoRED S2upid said:

Is this along the same lines as obtaining rights on common land? A loop hole. My law lecturer was very happy that he had fenced in 10ft of land at the bottom of the garden nobody noticed and after 10 years he legally had a massive garden.

How does 10ft make a massive garden?

10ft x 100ft is a fair space for example....

[13m]

Undirection said:

That's what I understand but there's a famous case of a farmer who hid a huge house he built behind bales of hay for over 4 years and then tried the 4-year thing but the Council would have none of it because he'd acted in a deceptive manner and told him it had to be demolished. Not sure if it ever was but he was a first class idiot for doing that. It was a lovely house but you can't just do what you want.

EDIT: Dodgy fker now taking the piss after selling it to someone who allowed him to still live in it and now is claiming wildlife protection!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11984...

Edited by Undirection on Wednesday 25th November 11:57

Which is why I said above, "and not hidden deliberately".

Kind of fair though isn't it. If someone builds something, it is not hidden, and neither neighbours nor Council complain in four years, then no one is clearly that bothered.

[Uncle John]

Undirection said:

That's what I understand but there's a famous case of a farmer who hid a huge house he built behind bales of hay for over 4 years and then tried the 4-year thing but the Council would have none of it because he'd acted in a deceptive manner and told him it had to be demolished. Not sure if it ever was but he was a first class idiot for doing that. It was a lovely house but you can't just do what you want.

EDIT: Dodgy fker now taking the piss after selling it to someone who allowed him to still live in it and now is claiming wildlife protection!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11984...

Edited by Undirection on Wednesday 25th November 11:57

Bloke lives around the corner from me and I think the High Court have now told him to knock it down by March otherwise the bulldozers move in.

Not really a "Farm" either, couple of fields with some cattle.

Of course there's now a petition against the council to stop the "Reckless Waste" with a few thousand signatures on it now.

The house is lovely though, solid oak staircases, the dome off of the damaged Brighton Pier. It's properly done and would be a shame but you just can't do what you please otherwise where would we end up??

Apparently built it all himself so some skill there.

The bloke must have some cash as he goes under the radar in a flourescent yellow Bentley GT Convertible....

[BoRED S2upid]

Dave_ST220 said:

The Beast of Codfin said:

BoRED S2upid said:

Is this along the same lines as obtaining rights on common land? A loop hole. My law lecturer was very happy that he had fenced in 10ft of land at the bottom of the garden nobody noticed and after 10 years he legally had a massive garden.

How does 10ft make a massive garden?

10ft x 100ft is a fair space for example....

Exactly. The sq ft isn't important it's the fact that if you know the law then there are ways around things.

[Undirection]

Uncle John said:

Undirection said:

That's what I understand but there's a famous case of a farmer who hid a huge house he built behind bales of hay for over 4 years and then tried the 4-year thing but the Council would have none of it because he'd acted in a deceptive manner and told him it had to be demolished. Not sure if it ever was but he was a first class idiot for doing that. It was a lovely house but you can't just do what you want.

EDIT: Dodgy fker now taking the piss after selling it to someone who allowed him to still live in it and now is claiming wildlife protection!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11984...

Edited by Undirection on Wednesday 25th November 11:57

Bloke lives around the corner from me and I think the High Court have now told him to knock it down by March otherwise the bulldozers move in.

Not really a "Farm" either, couple of fields with some cattle.

Of course there's now a petition against the council to stop the "Reckless Waste" with a few thousand signatures on it now.

The house is lovely though, solid oak staircases, the dome off of the damaged Brighton Pier. It's properly done and would be a shame but you just can't do what you please otherwise where would we end up??

Apparently built it all himself so some skill there.

The bloke must have some cash as he goes under the radar in a fluorescent yellow Bentley GT Convertible....

Yep, I imagine he's got a lot of money tied up in that but he's just taken a huge gamble and it's backfired. It's his own fault and as you rightly point out, if he gets away with it everyone will be doing it. The local council around West London did a big blitz not too long ago on people building small buildings at the end of their gardens that were mostly rented out. Unbelievable the number of garaged sized buildings people had built up!

/Sorry for the thread drift OP!

[olivebrown]

Yes he's correct - I know a couple of cases where developers have carried out residential conversions on large sites. Sometimes they find extra space not accounted for and turn it into resi space, then rent it for 4-5 years then get planning permission.

[The Beast of Codfin]

BoRED S2upid said:

Dave_ST220 said:

The Beast of Codfin said:

BoRED S2upid said:

Is this along the same lines as obtaining rights on common land? A loop hole. My law lecturer was very happy that he had fenced in 10ft of land at the bottom of the garden nobody noticed and after 10 years he legally had a massive garden.

How does 10ft make a massive garden?

10ft x 100ft is a fair space for example....

Exactly. The sq ft isn't important it's the fact that if you know the law then there are ways around things.

I was just querying how an extra 10ft made a garden massive. If his garden's 100ft wide then I suspect it's already pretty large and the extra 10ft wouldn't matter a jot.

I've not got acres of land but an +/-10ft on my garden would not change how you viewed it at all. It's definitely not 100ft wide either.

[PostHeads123]

My neighbour did the same built at the end of the garden, said it was permitted dev but it breached it completely, I wouldn't of mind but we completely lost all privacy. Anyway they were trying the same thing so I let it roll knowing I was going to move anyway in the next 3-4 years, so I let him think he got away with it, 2 month's prior to me completing on my sale I went to the council, 2 can play the game.

[13m]

PostHeads123 said:

My neighbour did the same built at the end of the garden, said it was permitted dev but it breached it completely, I wouldn't of mind but we completely lost all privacy. Anyway they were trying the same thing so I let it roll knowing I was going to move anyway in the next 3-4 years, so I let him think he got away with it, 2 month's prior to me completing on my sale I went to the council, 2 can play the game.

So let's see, you put up with the loss of privacy whilst you were living there. Then when you'd sold the house, presumably for less than you could have prior to the development, you told the council out of malice.

You seem to be both dim and spiteful.

[Billsnemesis]

13m said:

KrazyIvan said:

Circumnavigating planning permission is one thing, building regs are another altogether.

He may well be able to build an out building with out the planning permission, but he won't be able to live in it. Plus he will need to make sure that at no point does any one shop him into the planning office if he does live in it.

In short........it's unlikely his plan will work the way he thinks it's going to.

Yes building regs are quite another thing. They are only enforceable for TWO years.

Not quite

There is no limitation period on breach of building regs and if you get caught out you have to bring them up to the standard which applies when the error is discovered not the regs that applied when the work was done. So if the regs are changed then you have to include all of the subsequent changes up to the point where you put it right.

On planning there are two limitation periods. The four year period applies to breaches involving use for residential purposes while it is ten years for everything else.

The recent case of the house behind the hay bales was a deliberate attempt to hide residential development and wait out the four year period. Under the law at the time I thought he might have got away with it but the court decided it was just too much of a p**s take and the legislation was changed to hammer the point home.

[13m]

Billsnemesis said:

13m said:

KrazyIvan said:

Circumnavigating planning permission is one thing, building regs are another altogether.

He may well be able to build an out building with out the planning permission, but he won't be able to live in it. Plus he will need to make sure that at no point does any one shop him into the planning office if he does live in it.

In short........it's unlikely his plan will work the way he thinks it's going to.

Yes building regs are quite another thing. They are only enforceable for TWO years.

Not quite

There is no limitation period on breach of building regs and if you get caught out you have to bring them up to the standard which applies when the error is discovered not the regs that applied when the work was done. So if the regs are changed then you have to include all of the subsequent changes up to the point where you put it right.

On planning there are two limitation periods. The four year period applies to breaches involving use for residential purposes while it is ten years for everything else.

The recent case of the house behind the hay bales was a deliberate attempt to hide residential development and wait out the four year period. Under the law at the time I thought he might have got away with it but the court decided it was just too much of a p**s take and the legislation was changed to hammer the point home.

Sorry, you've got most of that wrong as far as I am aware.

The enforcement period for regs is 2 years, there's no enforcement possible after that. Planning is 4 years for development, 10 years for change of use. To the best of my knowledge the hay bales castle would not have passed muster even when it was built because it was deliberately concealed.