howplum

Thank you @Temp, excellent advice.

IF I ever manage to acquire the plot I cannot see anything being built before 2020, by which time the CIL may well be applicable. I could not find any national charging information, so I am assuming it is determined by the local Council. However, it would seem self-builders can claim exemption, even if the net floor area is over 100 square metres. If I understand correctly there are a couple of possible scenarios: 1. If the act of demolition is deemed to have started the development, which can only determined by the Planning Dept., then presumably there is no need to claim CIL exemption because it doesn't yet apply in our area. Hopefully the CIL cannot be applied once development has started, because as far as I can see, exemption can only be claimed BEFORE development starts. 2. Don't invite the Planning Dept. to rule on the demolition aspect, but submit revised plans, without mentioning demolition, perhaps different enough from the original plan to justify a new application. In fact, the seller said he was going to do this anyway, to include an additional two bedrooms and a bathroom in the roof space. On balance then, option 2 is probably the best course. In any event, an eye has to be kept out in case the CIL does become due, presumably by keeping in touch with the Planning Department.

From what I have found on the local Council's website, updated only last month, the CIL has not yet been instigated in Milton Keynes.

Thank you all. So, not quite so simple then. The seller is apparently complying, or has complied, with the three conditions that must be met "prior to commencement of the development". As more than one person has said, it's obviously best for the seller to speak to the Planning Dept. to get a formal response.

Me again! The plot I want to buy has PP to "demolish an outbuilding and erect a new bungalow". The owner has now demolished the structure but done nothing else at the moment, pending negotiations about a strip of land next to the plot. Maybe I am reading things too literally, or being obtuse, but does demolition of the structure constitute commencement of the development, thereby removing the 3 year time limit? I assume/hope this does not preclude me from submitting a new application once the plot is acquired, should I choose not to use the currently approved plan. Apparently "minor" changes can be made to the current PP online, without the need for a new application, but as yet I'm not sure what constitutes "minor".

I met the seller last night and after a bit of gentle questioning it turns out that the size and location of the turning area was in fact drawn on one of the previous planning applications by a highway engineer at the Council, who effectively supplied the solution to his previous objection to the development. I therefore cannot see that the turning area can be modified or removed without incurring a further objection from him. In answer to my original question it would therefore seem that the adoptive status of the road is irrelevant, from a planning point of view. Anyway, thank you all for your replies, they have been very helpful.

I spoke to the seller last night and he is pursuing purchase of the strip of land, although it may take some time, as mentioned before. However, it now seems there is a slight difference in the boundary of the strip and the land already owned by the seller, so he is arranging for a site visit by someone from the Land Registry, who hopefully will give a definitive answer. In any event, I have told him that we only want to buy the plot if it includes the strip of land. Anyway, thank you all for your replies, they have been most helpful.

The red shaded area is already part of the plot - I understand it was acquired separately many years ago by a previous owner. So yes, it is just the grey shaded area that the plot owner is trying to acquire and which will eventually be included as part of the sale, should he succeed. If he doesn't then that could be a deal breaker.

Another question for the seller to answer. From his comments I very much doubt he or the architect suggested it though. I have his name and number, so will ring him next week. A copy of the Land Registry Title is attached, and clearly shows two separate plots. The seller lives in the house on the south side of the road, which is physically separated from the building plot on the north side by the road. However, they are currently both part of the same title, but are being separated by his solicitor. The seller's original intention was to build a bungalow for himself on the plot and then sell his current house, but he has now decided to sell both, having found himself a project elsewhere for his retirement (he's a builder). Ultimately I don't actually have a particular problem with providing a turning area, and it's probably not a deal breaker. I could take the positive view and use it as the driveway to my hoped for garage. The garage could be set far enough back to allow me to park in front of it without interfering with the turning area. Obviously, it would better not to have the turning area taking such a chunk out of the plot though. Land Registry title plan.pdf

Thanks @Ferdinand. After some digging on the Council's website I found the Highways Development Management's observations: "I have previously objected to applications on the site due to the unsuitability of the width and alignment to accommodate the additional traffic generated by proposals. The current proposal is a significant improvement over the previous applications as an enlarged area is now provided for vehicle turning. This is acceptable. Parking for the site is provided in accordance with the parking standards and is acceptable (a visitor space is also provided). I have previously commented on the layout of Park Gardens to accommodate the additional dwelling. This comment is reproduced as follows: “Park Gardens is mostly a single track road with the two way sections being in the area close to Whalley Drive. Within the single track sections, width reduces to 3.1m but generally varies in width along its length. Overall Park Gardens is sub-standard for the number of dwellings served off a single track, private road. We would normally expect that single track, private roads should serve a maximum of 5 dwellings. There are 10 dwellings in Park Gardens.” There remains a concern of general width but this is not so severe as to lead me to object to the proposals. With the enlarged turning area provided this overcomes my primary reason for objection to the previous applications. I have no objections to the planning application subject to the following condition: 1. Prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted the scheme for parking and manoeuvring shown on the approved drawings shall be provided and shall be used for no other purpose thereafter. Reason: For the safety and convenience of users of the highway and of the access." I think I may therefore have found the answer to my original question, and from the above comments I would imagine the condition cannot be removed, and it's difficult to see how it might be modified, given the lack of room. Thank you to all of you who have responded - it was all most helpful. All that remains now is to keep in touch with the seller to see how acquistion of the strip of land next to the plot is progressing.

Which is the subject of my other topic. I don't intend to. In fact, the seller himself said not to spend any money until the matter is resolved.

Good points. I need to quiz the seller for more details, although he very open and helpful, so hopefully he will put all his cards on the table, since it's in his interest, as well as mine, to get the matter resolved. Negotiations about the strip are being dealt with by the Government Property Office, hence the potential 12 month timeline. That is my main concern, because if that situation transpires it may become uneconomic to buy the existing plot, since both are inextricably linked in order to be able to comply with the planning condition.

That's a good point, but I am actually more interested in the wider part of the strip at the northern end, which is where I would like to put a double garage because the turning area only goes about halfway to the back of the plot. The turning area would then also give me access to the garage.

Thank you all for your replies. Although some of my friends think I am able to manage the project myself, which is kind, I am more inclined not to, or at least, not totally. To save some money I can go the "shell-build" route, so that I can at least have some DIY input, such as decorating, cupboard building, garden landscaping and the like. I am very much in favour of a kit home, such as those supplied Dan-Wood, because of the speed and specification. On the other hand, good old bricks and mortar has its attractions, because I have built up a few connections in the building trade that I trust. However, it potentially takes longer, which will have an impact on the finances, because we will sell our house and live in a flat we currently rent out, so will lose the rental income. On the plus side, my wife says I can refurbish the flat whilst we are living it it! Luckily(?) we can't get a static caravan down the road!

Thanks @jack, I'll suggest to the current owner that he raises that point with his solicitor.