harry_angel

@bassanclan would prefer not to share this as a) I don't think it'll unlock the winning idea and b) we don't know who watches these forums! Yup they live in mortal fear of that, don't they? Which is why I'm trying to box them in to a bit of a corner...somehow.

@scottishjohn you can't widen the existing access because there are literally houses right in the way. There's no land to purchase, to widen. Only buildings. It's a very odd set up, trust me. The only solutions are: a) buy the neighbouring property (but this is the most expensive route and delivers an only slightly improved access) or b) come in across common land (delivers far superior access at a theoretically minute percentage of the cost.)

Also... Allowing vehicles on common land It’s an offence to drive a vehicle onto common land unless: the driver intends to park it within 15 yards of a public road the driver has permission from the landowner In some circumstances, people who have to drive across a common to access their property may have a right to do so. Find out more about vehicle access to property over common land.

@scottishjohn it's not really like that tbh. Bit tricky to describe. There is an existing vehicular access/bridleway which leads to a neighbouring property but even with this in play we still require the cut-across. @Jeremy Harris yep, minefield is probably an understatement. I do believe however that - as your example perfectly illustrates - there is a lot of scope to play tennis with it. As yer man did in your example, he basically pinged the ball back to the council, the homeowner and everybody else and said: "you deal with it". And clearly everyone thought life was too short and declined to deal with it. Q - do you know how long ago prior to your involvement he'd claimed to have moved the fence? This section of the article above is quite interesting: Section 68 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the Vehicular Access Across Common and Other Land (England) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/1711: www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20021711.htm.) were introduced to resolve the problems Hanning had created for property owners. The provisions had effect where a vehicular right of access to premises could have been claimed by prescription but for the judgment in the Hanning case. The regulations set appropriate levels of payment to the landowner for statutory easements giving a right of way to premises for vehicles, where the landowner was either unwilling voluntarily to grant an easement, or seeking excessive compensation in return for doing so. The compensation rates were in the range of 0.25% - 2% of the value of the property, depending on its age. This compared with sums of between 6%–10%, which some landowners had been demanding previously.

Thanks Jeremy. My loose understanding is that if you can squat on common land for 10 years (without objection) then you have a legal right to claim it, though that in itself is clearly a legal process likely riddled with difficulties.

Short of purchasing one of the neighbouring properties (haven't ruled this out but the economics are really tough), no, this is impossible. Current access is totally boxed in by other properties...

That is, as you said, the very definition of temporary and moveable...many thanks.

This is a post for the more creatively minded out there who dislike accepting "No"! Put bluntly the access to my property is terrible. It's super narrow (sub 3m), wends between other neighbouring properties, contains poor visibility and generates almost weekly complaints from delivery drivers, tradespeople, you name it. Could a fire truck get down it, in case of emergency? Maybe, but it would probably knock down the neighbours' fences in doing so. It's the terrible result of a land sale in the 50s orchestrated by someone with friends in high places. To create a new access, I'd need to drive c. 30m over heavily screened, secluded common land. I've tried proposing a fusion of a land swap (so the net volume of common land isn't negatively affected) plus a commercial proposition. The council who own the common have said: "forget it". My response is: "all the while I own this house, I'll be trying...so expect this to boomerang back at you". I really need to get creative here and was thinking the BH hive mind might be able to help. As I see it I am totally within my rights to WALK out on to this common. If I can walk out on to it then we are left with 2 questions: how can I DRIVE on it? how can I do the necessary works to be able to DRIVE on it? Now coming out of leftfield I was thinking someone, somewhere must have created some kind of "technically temporary but in reality permanent", harder-standing ramp or driveway of sorts. Something that simply sits there, or is positioned there, but absolutely does not constitute "works". Doesn't involve concrete or hardcore or cement and can (technically speaking) simply be removed. Probably made of wood. Think - various railway sleeper depth slabs of wood bolted together. A caravan....simply in driveway form. The implementation of something like this (ie. some wood, placed in common land, among other wood) might knock out problem No. 2. Or at least play a very long, very expensive game of tennis with the council as the ball goes back to them and the onus shifts on to them to prove this large piece of interconnected wood is in some way unlawful. If that worked, you'd be left with 1 problem: how do I drive on it? Maybe you're then in to an argument about the safety of the other access. Maybe this argument runs and runs and runs. Ultimately I do feel there's a way lurking somewhere in here. I almost need to box the council in to the corner somehow whereby they think: "stuff it, they'll give us the land so the net volume of common land won't be affected, and we'll make a chunk of change, so let's just get rid of him that way..." This link sheds light on quite how murky common land law is: https://www.oss.org.uk/vehicular-access-across-common-land-and-town-or-village-greens/ Are there any creative geniuses out there who could help me crack this? Big bounty fee for the person(s) who can!!

http://hybridhousesltd.com/ Has anyone heard of these guys? Or used them? Tks

Fingers crossed for you and GL. One word of warning, valuers were massively down valuing due to Brexit even before Corona struck so now....well ours was down valued by £75k on valuations from 3 years ago. I literally shudder to think what they'd value it at right now... We are looking at possibly getting 2 x unsecured personal loans for c. £25k, or a bridging loan...all messier than it was meant to be!

@Bitpipe yeah you can buy over 2000 regency bricks for less than £80 on Ebay, so unless you're dealing in massive volume it's likely a serious waste of time. @Vijay I presume that's another way of saying "main contractor's margin"...!

How did you demolish the bungalow? I think our outbuildings would probably come down with a judicious push from a mini digger. They're not in a great way. I would love to sell some of the barn (lot of timber, fair amount of slate tiles, regency bricks) but have been having zero joy on Ebay et al so far. I'm not sure if it's me but £14k incl VAT just feels like quite a big hit to pull down a crumbling barn, dig some trenches and do a pour, but that is probably me being naive!

There are about 1000 imperial bricks, a fair amount of slate tiles, 2 concrete slabs of sorts... @JFDIY yes that section feels on the steep side. This doesn't include bathroom fittings. Tbh I think with corona we are going to struggle to get straight quotes out of anyone at the moment. This builder said he may need to revise completely because everything is going to be more expensive out the other side. I think for now I just have to concentrate on getting the old outbuildings down and the foundations in.

Cheers again guys. This is the quote we are looking to chop away at...any big red flags there?

Cheers @ProDave Vague, day-dreaming temptation to just buy this and be done with it! https://www.quick-garden.co.uk/insulated-log-cabin-house-bordeaux-6m-x-11m-20x36-ft-twin-skin.html

Wow, amazing effort @JFDIY ! I'm all game for upskilling but I know my limitations and I would not back myself not to screw that up royally!

Thanks @ProDave . Great idea. Re excavations and foundations on this, what would you back yourself to bring this in for? Not up to damp proof course, just foundations dug and poured...?

Thanks all. These are the draft plans. Note these are a bit of a work in progress, we are hopeful of securing the extra width to turn what is described as the lounge, in to 2 bedrooms. I am not particularly practical which is why I'm feeling the heat to select the right build method. I feel like if I can get most of the way there (ie. built, minus kitchen and bathroom and fixtures and fittings) for around £100k, then I can reasonably swiftly cashflow the rest. But from the above, this feels seriously unlikely!

Dave, many thanks. As you are a self-builder in the highlands with fully 17,000 BH posts.... ...I believe you! In the light of that, this is going to be very tough. Location: Surrey Budget: £100k for the build to habitable point (doesn't include kitchen, bathroom but does incl light fittings, boiler etc) Access: sorry pls clarify. Plot is semi rural. Existing outbuildings have electricity and water

Due to a second property in London being badly down valued prior to re-mortgaging and in the light of Brexit (I dread to think what they'd value it right now, mid corona), I am going to be short about £60k to construct an 147m2, 4 bed in place of 2 existing, crumbling outbuildings (albeit said outbuildings have electricity and water already). With this squeeze on budget, I am going to need to cut every corner going (within reason) to get this over the line. Throw in the fact that this is my first build of any description, and it's going to be "interesting" times! From other threads, it appears that Closed Panel Timber Frame as opposed to SIPS may offer the best shot at delivering a combo of quality and real value. Appreciate that this is a bit of a how-long's-a-piece-of-string Q, but by getting properly creative, what's the least you'd back yourself to bring this 147m2 structure in for, and how?

Thanks, yes looking in to him. He has a big online presence or digital skin in the game. Doubt whether he will go for no win/no fee but can try...

I just had this back from one planning consultant: This condition seems to me to be completely unreasonable. Councils cannot remove permitted development rights from a whole house when the application related only to a front extension. I don't think I have ever seen a council try this before. One of the 'tests' of a planning condition is that it must relate exclusively to the development being proposed. In your case, the development is the front extension but the condition stops all other extensions under PD (including rear extensions and roof extensions, for example). I can see what the council is trying to achieve. National policy limits extensions in the Green Belt and the council therefore decided that they would grant permission for the front extension but that, in compensation, future PD extensions should not take place. However, this approach is not valid. If the council was determined to remove the PD rights as part of a quid pro quo, it could only be achieved (as far as I know) though a legal agreement. Conditions should not be used in this way. I recommend that you apply to the council to have the condition removed. I would charge a fee of £1,000 plus VAT, 50% of the fee payable upfront and the remainder when the application is ready to be submitted. There is an application fee of £250 to the council. The fee includes a detailed supporting statement that sets out the government's position and relevant case law and explains why the condition is not justified. Hopefully, the council would bow to the logic in the supporting statement. If it is stubborn and the application is refused, I could appeal the refusal for an additional fee of £400 plus VAT. Any thoughts?

Haven't consulted a planning consultant yet, but definitely will. Thought I'd see whether anyone had been through this process previously. What kills me is how cheaply the previous owner gave away said rights, he didn't even get a massive extension or some giant outbuilding out of it. I want PDR reinstated a) because the council are extremely tough here and will fight tooth and nail over pretty much every sq m you go for, regardless of form or location and b) in a wider sense, I have a natural aversion to going cap in hand to some (not always) brilliantly run or managed "higher" entity! Particularly when immediate neighbours are using PD, willy-nilly! Think I'll follow Temp's investigation ideas below... Thanks for everyone's input. Btw this is another rant on the same subject! https://www.accidentalsmallholder.net/forum/index.php?topic=91853.0

@Dreadnaught Nope, just straight up green belt and house isn't listed.

Thanks guys. Ok here's the precise wording from the Permission Approved Letter: Immediately following the implementation of this permission, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended on 1st October 2008) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification) no buildings, extensions or alterations permitted by Classes A, B and E of Part 1 of the Second Schedule of the 1995 Order (as amended on 1st October 2008) shall be carried out. Reason: To protect the openness of the Green Belt. In accordance with the following policy number(s), RE2 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction 24/09/07). What do you think? The 3-part extensions granted were really routine tbh - one was just a bathroom dormer!