Randomiser

Members
  • Content Count

    176
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

37 Neutral

About Randomiser

  • Rank
    Regular Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think the key notification for the council is the Council Tax department. There used to be discounts for empty houses, I heard a while back that some councils are now looking to charge a premium on empty houses, so you may end up paying more to not live there. As mentioned by others if the house is unoccupied for a period of time 30 or 60 days in many cases I think you have to inform your insurer and they will probably want you to take out a specialist empty house policy. If you have left ypurself on the electoral role and done neither of the two above I am afraid it sounds as though those seven months have been wasted. It does seem a lot of hassle to go through for the VAT saving, do the numbers really make it that worthwhile? In terms of the system being unfair, to be blunt you are 'gaming' the system somewhat. I am sure the intention of the scheme is to bring genuinely empty housing stock back in to use, not to cause housing to be taken out of the stock of in use homes for two years to get the tax break.
  2. Another update, hopefully the saga is nearing an end. I had an email a few weeks back from SSEN kindly offering to pick up less than half the cost of moving the cables running over our site, for which they have never had a wayleave. At about the same time I had a letter from BEIS telling me they had finally registered SSEN's Necessary Wayleave Application. I am suspicious it was this that prompted SSEN's offer. I thought about all this and wrote back to SSEN and suggested a possible way forward would be to agree the cost if they would 'throw in' providing a temporary supply for the site and the connection once we have finished the build - my logic being that they might give me more willing to give me something that costs the significantly less than it is worth to me. I pointed out that BEIS had registered the Necessary Wayleave Application and said that if we could not reach an agreement within a month I would inform BEIS I did noy want the application left in abeyance and would request a formal hearing on the application (which would be at SSEN's expense). Having senr the email I got an auto response back telling me the person I had emailed had left SSEN, this did not sound good. But it did give an alternate to email, so I forwarded my email to them. The new person quickly responded to say they could not agree to my proposal due to regulatory constraints but that she was going to return to the design team and speak to them about it. Yesterday I had an email saying SSEN would bear the cost of the two new poles and relaying the cable if I would carry out the excavation. Exactly what I proposed well over a year ago! It is not done and dusted yet as I have yet to see the draft Easement Agreement and that could have some unreasonable terms in it, but finally some progress. It seems, compared to some past experience others have reported that SSEN are playing hard ball a bit more now. I have no idea if the change in their position was due to the change in contact person or because I said I would start the hearing process. But my sense is that unless you are pretty robust they will be looking to transfer a lot of cost onto the self builder. This may explain why the BEIS has experienced a large number of Neccessary Wayleave Applications. As ever, hopefully this might help others in a similar situation in the future.
  3. He's an architect, he won't be joking about that!
  4. Worth noting that Mansell looks to be a really useful case more generally than just Part Q. The concept of a fall-back it references is applicable to any PD if my understanding is correct. I have a friend who is referencing it in his efforts to extend a cottage in the countryside, he is referencing the option of an 8m rear extension as the fall-back. Having spoken to him at length about it recently it seems Mansell is really helpful as it says something like ‘its doesn’t have to be certain the fall-back will be built if consent is denied, just possible’.
  5. Not sure what the answer is, but my gut feel is that it would be hard to make the roof look cohesive and attractive if you do away with the small pitched section. But maybe I just don't have a good enough imagination.
  6. Four years for planning I believe. But my recollection is that there is no similar time limit for building regulations.
  7. But the OP is in Shropshire, last I looked that was not in Scotland 😂
  8. From what I understand adopted (maintained) is not the same as classified. According to a Govt. website I looked at abour 60% of roads in England are adopted but unclassified.
  9. To answer my own question, my county council has a helpful map where you can check a road's status. It categorises roads as: A Roads B Roads C Roads Unclassified (even the unclassified ones appear to have a number with a U prefix). Looking at the link above it seems a new access onto an unclassified road where you do not need to cross a pavement requires neither planning permission nor highways consent. Even if you are crossing a grass verge owned by the highways authority it seems you do not need their consent to cross it.
  10. How would you definitively establish if a road is numbered or not? Is there a definitive mapping of numbered roads?
  11. I am 99% sure that equestrian use is excluded from the definition of agricultural buildings, so not covered by Class Q. So I would check carefully on that point.
  12. Andrew I noticed that you posted a comment that your Timber Frame erection was stopped due to the lock down, but I wondered if there was another blog post imminent? The ones so far have been brilliant, so was hoping to see where you are up to now. Randomiser.
  13. I think equestrian buildings are specifically from the agricultural conversion provisions.
  14. That's really helpful, thank you. I had confused myself because of the discussion of side elevations fronting a highway on page 16, but it seems from reading Class E again, as referenced by you, that particular aspect of Class A is not relevant for Class E. Because I was wrongly taking account of the side elevation fronting a highway considerations of Class A I was getting into a much more complex analysis than is needed. It seems simple, the new garage they want to build is at the back of the house so as long as it complies with the other criteria it will be permitted development. I'll pass that on (I have tried to persuade my friends to join this forum as it is so helpful, but for whatever reason they seem to have an issue with much the internet has to offer).
  15. I mentioned on another thread I have some friends currently looking to utilise Permitted Development Rights as negotiating leverage to help secure planning permission for a large extension on their cottage. They asked me another question on Permitted Development Rights that I do not feel confident about answering, so I thought I would put it up here to see if anyone has any thoughts. There is an old single size garage on the property build before they bought the cottage, it is not really in keeping with the rural area, constructed of concrete panels with a metal roof. Because of the orientation of the cottage on the plot it is at the back of the house, though one of the cottage's sides actually fronts the road. It is only behind the side elevation fronting the road in part, some of it is in front of that side elevation which to my understanding means it is not Permitted Development. However, they can demonstrate that it has been on the property for well in excess of four years, so my understanding is that they can secure a Certificate of Lawfulness (CoL) for the garage. They would like to replace the garage with a larger one, the replacement would sit on the same part of the property as the existing one but extend back further onto the property. All of the additional part they want to build would be behind the side elevation fronting the road. What they are wondering is whether, having secured a CoL on the existing garage, can they replace it with a larger one where the additional area of footprint would all be on a part of the property where it would be Permitted Development. If they can, are they limited to the height of the existing garage that they can get a CoL for, or as long as it meets the requirements of Permitted Development can they build a more attractive one which has a higher ridge height? I guess the alternative is to just make an application to replace it with a larger one with a design more in keeping with the area. However, they are concerned that as soon as they put in a planning application any approval will come with a condition that takes away all their Permitted Development rights, and so scuppers their plans to use PD rights as negotiating leverage with the planners. Any thoughts?