RichC

@scottishjohn OK. Fine. It's all good. I'm going to bow out of the discussion now. I just wanted to have a light discussion with a few folks on what constituted derelict, not an argument about planning law.

How about these: 1. Subsidies on land prices for locals buying in the area that they have lived and worked. Subsidies for infill and brownfield self-builders. 2. Earmarking pockets of land around settlements for local sale, where possible. 3. Streamlining the sale of land with the planning process so that it is easier to come to an agreement for sale should planning be approved. 4. Make change of use of buildings easier, so that neglected farm building can become residential opportunities. 5. A discussion on ways to avoid an old property losing it's C3 residential status simply through neglect. New ways are invariably not as efficient as the established procedures. Throwing out the old order is not what I'm suggesting. Our planning laws exist for a reason. However, there are sharp jagged edges on our planning system and they need to be ground down so that first time self builders can actually get on and build without having to become planning experts in the process, or go through months of emotional turmoil.

No - my point is exactly that they have the money to do what ordinary locals can't do. I used a supermarket as an example. I'm not suggesting that we don't need services like this, what I am saying is that there needs to be a level playing field in regards to planning rules. At the moment we have rules that can be bought.

I went dark for a while. Apologies. Had some other distractions that kept my attention elsewhere. @scottishjohn Even the hippy tinker in me does not want planning with abandon as you seem to think I do. However, imagine this scenario. A large supermarket chain eyes up a nice field on the edge of your local development. It's a nice spot. Now, they have the money to go in, buy the land and start building without PP. The 'groundwork' so to speak has been ongoing for years in the community in the form of networking with the right people. It doesn't matter how the supermarket will affect the local community or local businesses. It's a fait-a-complis. It's a case of money gets the PP regardless of the relative merits of the supermarket. It goes on up and down the land every day. But, if a regular bloke, or hippy tinker had come along and eyed up a plot to build their house, they may or may not get planning permission. Either way they will jolly well have to go through all the official channels and we all know that it may be a hellish journey for anyone to take. As with most things in life, money and influence get the job done no matter what, and this is exactly what I'm getting at. Our planning system, rather than protecting the countryside and regulating building seems to only protect and regulate those without the funds to circumvent it. I cite the 'Paragraph 79' loophole as a case in point. ...And that was my point. I don't have all the answers but I would like to see it become easier for ordinary people to build a home without putting themselves under a lifetime of debt.

Viable to comply with PP? It seems to me that what you're saying is PP should be given to commercial ventures in preference to private individuals simply because they make more money? I think we need a planning system that actually turns this notion on its head and looks out for the individual.

I'm no expert, but I do know that there are plenty of people doing very well on several well managed acres. And anyway, why should anyone have to prove that they can be commercially viable? If the land provides for you what you need to live then that's enough. I am very critical of the Welsh One Planet Development scheme, but those who have undertaken to follow the restrictive covenants that it puts in place have multiplied many times the productivity of what was previously rough grazing land.

I'd like to see the people who want to farm on a small scale for their own self sufficiency and profit be able to do that without draconian planning legislation assuming that they are there to build a secret mansion in the countryside. We could really energise rural communities with thriving local markets and local deliveries that rival the big supermarkets.

I know. It's crazy. The problem is putting all private planning matters under one umbrella labelled 'problem'. I am labouring, rightly or wrongly, under the belief that a house should not put the average person under a lifetime of debt.

...And I realise now that I basically re-iterated what @Ferdinand said in his earlier post

The FarmingUK article highlights a difference between abandonment and derelict in my view. It seems to me that a situation may exist where a property is derelict but not abandoned, perhaps through indifference or inability on behalf of the owner or occupant to perform remedial work. In which case the need for a certificate of lawful existing use may be moot. It then seems logical to me that in deciding whether remedial work to reinstate a property requires planning, both definitions would need to be addressed. In the kind of cases I am thinking about, abandonment appears to be what needs to be addressed.

P.S Thanks scottishjohn for the info on Scottish law, as I have been looking far up north as well.

Thanks to all who have replied to this topic. Some very interesting pieces of information from everyone. Thank you. As some may know, I am in the early stages of planning to build my own home, and in looking for appropriate plots I discovered some interesting old buildings. Obtaining a certificate of lawful existing use seems to be of high priority. Thanks again.

Hi, I'm interested to know if anyone has any idea if there is a formal definition of derelict in planning law? By that I mean, is there a test that attempts to define when, say, a dwelling has become derelict and would therefore require planning permission to reinstate its use as a dwelling again? I've been perusing derelict properties and it became clear to me that some were just in need of modernisation, but others needed obvious, fundamental building works. The line between non derelict and derelict seems undefined to me. With an adversarial planning system in place, one may not want to saunter into the LPA and ask what may end up becoming a very difficult question. I'm not advocating doing anything that flouts planning regulations but wanted to know where one's responsibilities to talk to the LPA begins. I've read some reports on the internet that talk about the need to reinstate various utilities as being indicative of derelict, but say you were planning an off-grid rebuild - where would you stand? I look forward to hearing what others have to say.

With respect to the hinge / attachment to the ground discussion above, Walter Segal did not specify any form of brackets at ground level, as I think I may have mentioned. However, he did specify that a plate of lead be laid underneath each upright post. The idea being that eventually the weight of the building would force the lead into the endgrain of the post and protect it from rot. I would love to go and see some of the existing buildings in London and see for myself if this is evident in the construction, and see how well those posts have stood up to water damage over the years.

I just went back to look at the pictures of your build Ed. I see that you put the posts individually on the brackets. I wonder how practical it would be to use those if the whole wall was already pre-assembled before being lifted up onto the brackets. Would be disappointing to find out that the flange was a cm off.... ...but as I write this I realise that that could be alleviated by aligning the flange in the same plane as the wall Rich.