Planning laws preventing my dream home.

[Waterworks]

Thanks for your replies so far.

 

My future plan ( 10 years time possibly ) is to buy the wood land then put something like a Shepherds hut there and see what happens, I have no info on how councils monitor the land use so I would just have to give it a go, do they get informed of every sale ? do they tour the area looking for illegal buildings ?  

 

Seeing as my wish is to have solitude and not draw attention to myself who knows I might get away with it for a while ?  Unless anyone has any other ideas of how to live off grid in a remote place without buying a house ?

 

As you all know any kind of property is an insane price. 

£235,000 !

 

 

 

 

[SteamyTea]

6 hours ago, Waterworks said:

My future plan ( 10 years time possibly ) is to buy the wood land then put something like a Shepherds hut there and see what happens

You could start with putting a small cheap tent on it, then a larger one.

See what happens.

Keep adding things like caravans and sheds over time.

Eventually, no one will take any notice.

Then sneak your well camouflaged home in.

 

[ProDave]

Don't forget though, it was ruled that deliberately hiding a building does not then allow you to claim the 4 years use.  Remember the case of the guy that built a castle hidden behind a stack of straw bales, then tried to claim a certificate of lawful development.  It was ruled that because he deliberately concealed the building that period of use did not count.

[Jeremy Harris]

An application we dealt with a few weeks ago was for a certificate of lawfulness for a mobile home that had been on an isolated site for around 15 years or so, with no form of consent.  I drove up to look at it and take some photos for my colleagues, and it was very obvious that it had been carefully hidden by shrubs and trees,  It was a few tens of metres off a fairly well-used byeway, yet unless you'd spotted it on Google Earth and then gone looking the chances are no one would ever see it.  In their submission, part of the evidence for the length of time it had been there were receipts for two replacement mobile homes, delivered to the location, so the one I looked at was actually the third one that had been there. 

 

I doubt that there was any way to prove that it had been deliberately hidden, given the nature of the wooded land around it, but it seemed to me that some effort had been taken to make sure it stayed out of sight.  If you deliberately hide an unlawful development than it remains unlawful, as demonstrated by the chap that built a wall of straw bales around the outside of his unlawful development and failed to gain a certificate of lawfulness because it was deliberately hidden, I believe.

[SteamyTea]

7 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Remember the case of the guy that built a castle hidden behind a stack of straw bales, then tried to claim a certificate of lawful development

He would have been allowed to keep it if he had changed the design.  Trouble was it was a battle of personalities, more than the planning rules.

 

[ProDave]

8 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

An application we dealt with a few weeks ago was for a certificate of lawfulness for a mobile home that had been on an isolated site for around 15 years or so, with no form of consent.  I drove up to look at it and take some photos for my colleagues, and it was very obvious that it had been carefully hidden by shrubs and trees,  It was a few tens of metres off a fairly well-used byeway, yet unless you'd spotted it on Google Earth and then gone looking the chances are no one would ever see it. 

That is less clear as he probably argued because the trees were there, he put it on the only clear spot, which just happened to be out of sight of the track.  so probably "less" deliberately hiding it than stacking a pile of straw bales around it.

[Jeremy Harris]

9 minutes ago, ProDave said:

That is less clear as he probably argued because the trees were there, he put it on the only clear spot, which just happened to be out of sight of the track.  so probably "less" deliberately hiding it than stacking a pile of straw bales around it.

 

 

I suspect that will be the argument that's put forward to the planning officer, but if the planning officer takes a look at the trees and shrubs around the site it's not hard to work out that several mature trees were felled in order to clear a space, and that lots of young trees were all planted at around the same time.  I'm not a tree expert, by any means, but it was clear to me that there was two distinct growth phases up there.

[ProDave]

That will just be argued he was being eco friendly and re planted what he felled.

[ProDave]

7 hours ago, Waterworks said:

Thanks for your replies so far.

 

My future plan ( 10 years time possibly ) is to buy the wood land then put something like a Shepherds hut there and see what happens, I have no info on how councils monitor the land use so I would just have to give it a go, do they get informed of every sale ? do they tour the area looking for illegal buildings ?  

 

Seeing as my wish is to have solitude and not draw attention to myself who knows I might get away with it for a while ?  Unless anyone has any other ideas of how to live off grid in a remote place without buying a house ?

 

As you all know any kind of property is an insane price. 

£235,000 !

 

 

 

 

Assuming there is a house under there?

 

SWMBO would not live in it. Imagine how many spiders there would be.

[Randomiser]

10 hours ago, Ferdinand said:

 

6 year period .. see 1st para.

Ahh, re reading your post I presume the "per" was short hand for per year, I just judged you by my own standards and assumed it was some sort of typo and you meant 20 in total ?

[Randomiser]

8 hours ago, Waterworks said:

Thanks for your replies so far.

 

My future plan ( 10 years time possibly ) is to buy the wood land then put something like a Shepherds hut there and see what happens, I have no info on how councils monitor the land use so I would just have to give it a go, do they get informed of every sale ? do they tour the area looking for illegal buildings ?  

 

Seeing as my wish is to have solitude and not draw attention to myself who knows I might get away with it for a while ?  Unless anyone has any other ideas of how to live off grid in a remote place without buying a house ?

 

As you all know any kind of property is an insane price. 

£235,000 !

 

 

 

 

Is it still possible under current planning rules to follow this approach...

 

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/kevin-mcclouds-man-made-home/episode-guide

[Randomiser]

Just now, Sensus said:

 

Since the episodes aren't available to view, we don't know what approach he used for Planning. But the Planning rules haven't changed significantly in recent years, so if it was by a legal route, it would still be possible today.

 

There are no easy, legal 'loopholes' to allow permanent residential occupation of land in open countryside, though. If there were, then everyone would be doing it.

 

Apologies, I did not realise the programme was not viewable, not much use to the OP then.  All I seem to recall from watching it at the time was that wheels played a big part in the legality of it and McCloud made a big thing of it not mattering if they were buried in the ground if they were still attached.

[Jeremy Harris]

3 minutes ago, Sensus said:

 

There are no easy, legal 'loopholes' to allow permanent residential occupation of land in open countryside, though. If there were, then everyone would be doing it.

 

 

Indeed there aren't, although it does seem at times as if the rules are applied in a somewhat arbitrary and iniquitous manner. 

 

An example I've quoted here before is of a friend that has been breeding and rearing fancy chickens (the breeds that are grown for showing).  She's been doing this for well over 20 years now, and managed to gain PP to site a static caravan on her small holding, after she argued (at great length, during several applications) that she needed to be close to her flock in order to shut them up at night, deal with night time predators, etc.  Several times she's applied to convert her temporary caravan consent converted to consent for a small bungalow in the same place on site.  She's OK if that house had an agricultural tie.  She continues to be refused PP, although they do renew her consent to keep the caravan there. 

 

This seems bonkers to me, when there are other, similar, rural developments that are being granted consent, often with flimsier justification.

[ProDave]

Just out of interest, if one parked a trailer mounted radio tower on one's land and it never moved, how many years does that have to be there before you can get a lawful development certificate?

[gc100]

My project is in open countryside and planning was very resistant to say the least. However the BY FAR the quickest and easy route is class Q permitted development of an existing structure. You  only have to fulfil 9 points the most important is it has to be structurally sound enough to take a home. I went that route, and then once I got that, I then went for full planning  (as we wanted it to be a little bigger) which had to go to committee - which I won but had all my normal planning rights removed (so I cannot extend etc,).

 

I looked a lot into para 55 and spoke to a local architect that had so far got about 8 through, but didn't go that route as you need a huge amount of documentation to support it and he said on average it could be anything from 40K to 80K for their fees. However getting an innovative design etc wasn't really the issue, it was more about how the development would actually enhance the area. The last one they got through was for quite a minor building, but it was on reclaimed land that  was made into a nature reserve the the building was to be rented out for bird watchers.

Edited September 19, 2019 by gc100

[Ferdinand]

4 hours ago, Randomiser said:

Ahh, re reading your post I presume the "per" was short hand for per year, I just judged you by my own standards and assumed it was some sort of typo and you meant 20 in total ?

 

Sorry .. iPad mangled it, and I thought Ye a was gibberish so I edited it out.

 

F

[gc100]

3 hours ago, Sensus said:

 

Yes, Class Q is relatively straightforward, but also very limited in terms of what it gives you; for example, you're not allowed to extend or enlarge the building, even slightly as part of the original conversion (to the degree that even external insulation or render would be 'illegal'), you don't get the normal domestic permitted development rights, and the allowable domestic curtilage is very limited.

 

 

Yes indeed all valid points and worth knowing, but I didn't think the OP would be interested in those aspects given his opening statement about something small etc in the countryside 

[Randomiser]

22 hours ago, Sensus said:

 

Yes, as above; para 79 does indeed trump the 'sustainability' issues of geographic isolation and lack of public transport or local infrastructure.

 

Indeed, isolation is arguably one of the qualifying requirements of a para 79 house (I've seen appeals go both ways, but certainly I've also seen para 55/79 applications refused because they weren't deemed to be isolated enough).

 

The biggest problem, though, is that the wording of para 79 requires both that the design should be 'truly outstanding or innovative', and that it should 'significantly enhance its immediate setting and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area'.

 

I know Planners (including my own Planning Director, in her former life) and Authorities who set a very high bar on the 'truly outstanding or innovative' bit. If they feel like it, almost anything can be proven to be derivative in some way or another, and it's very difficult to argue against a refusal on these grounds unless you can demonstrate that there is a technology or design feature that genuinely hasn't ever been used before.

 

On the other hand, I know Local Authorities who seem willing to set the bar remarkably low. Notably Boston, in Lincolnshire, who I've now seen approve at least two para 79's that certainly wouldn't have passed muster with me... but then if you know the area around Boston, you'll know that it's not difficult to do something that enhances its setting: anything that doesn't involve cabbages as far as the eye can see is in with a pretty good shout.

I find that bold sentence very interesting, but in a negative way.  Part of my interest in para 79 is because it sparked an idea in my mind about a piece of land not far from us.  It has had more than a dozen goes at getting consent for one or two houses.  It is outside any settlement so regarded as countryside but somewhat oddly it has houses on both sides and behind it.  It is nearly an acre so a big enough site to do something other than squeezing a new house in to a row of houses.  I think the owner has pretty much given up on getting consent to build on it and in the past I heard he had offered to sell it on to a few people.  It is massively overgrown and in the past people have fly tipped significant amounts of rubbish on it.

 

Oooo, I thought, could one look at paragraph 79 here?  However, having looked at one of the recent appeal decisions the Inspect has said that whilst it is not sustainable because of the lack of services and public transport near the site she would not describe it as isolated given there are a lot of other houses nearby.  Given your comment above I fear if the planners were so inclined they would argue paragraph 79 did not apply as whilst it is in the countryside, it is not isolated.  IMHO that would be a ludicrous outcome, but I fear it may be what would happen.

[Randomiser]

14 minutes ago, Sensus said:

 

In that circumstance, I would be more bothered about the Planning history of the site.

 

There have been enough appeals that have over-ruled the 'not isolated' argument that you can head that one off as a primary reason for refusal, but Para 79 should always be about the architectural idea first and foremost and the creation of a new dwelling almost as an incidental afterthought, if that makes sense?

 

You should be doing it because you are passionate about creating an innovative and/or exceptional piece of architecture, not because you want to find a loophole that will allow you to build a house where otherwise you shouldn't, in other words.

 

The fact that someone has already flogged the site to death in Planning terms would very definitely not help in convincing them of that.

That all makes sense.

 

I would definitely like to lay on my death bed and look back on having played a part in creating an amazing piece of architecture.  The challenge is that amazing is unlikely to come cheap.  By the time I pay the going rate for plots that have / will get consent the remaining budget is unlikely to create something more than a bit better than average - indeed we have a plot, but what is slated to be built there is definitely not in paragraph 79 territory, but we can afford it.  So the thought process is less a matter of loopholes and more one of opportunity.  If we could buy a plot at a lower price because the prospect of planning consent is considered low that would leave a bigger budget for the build and amazing becomes more of a prospect.  But I am sure I am not alone in being in a position where dreams and reality don't occupy the same space ?

[ProDave]

9 hours ago, Sensus said:

Ten, assuming that the land is not domestic curtilage.

If the land IS domestic curtilage of a not yet finished house?

[ProDave]

5 minutes ago, Sensus said:

 

Then it ISN'T domestic curtilage... domestic use (and its associated curtilage) doesn't come into existence until a dwelling has been occupied.

 

That aside, if it was domestic curtilage, then arguably you couldn't get a Certificate of Lawfulness for a trailer-mounted radio mast for the same reason that you couldn't get one for a trailer without a radio mast mounted on it... it's a chattel, incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling, not 'development' as defined by the TCPA. It would depend on the precise circumstances and use of the mast, though.

Then it will stay on a trailer then, which may never move.  If it was not on a trailer it would need PP as it would not be permitted development.

[ProDave]

Just now, Sensus said:

That seems sensible... wait until they try to enforce, before arguing the case.

But I had thought if it never moved then after a while it could gain a lawful development and be demounted from the trailer?

[Cpd]

18 hours ago, Waterworks said:

Unless anyone has any other ideas of how to live off grid in a remote place without buying a house ?

Well now you mention it...... there is a cave not far from where I live and has been used on and off by tinkers over the last 100 years, recently a new tinker took up residence. He has a canoe that he uses to get over to the mainland and returns with his supplies. You could walk past and completely miss his residence as he has kept it all very clean and tidy and used only natural materials as the outward shelter. The local community are very tolerant as he is a nice guy minding his own business and just getting on with his life. So yes it is possible but how earthy are you  prepared to go ! I purchased my plot for £110k with three ramshackle buildings and have embarked on upgrading rather than rebuilding, something I regret in a panic but when it’s all done I think it will all ad to the charm of the place. There were very few trees and I want to live in a wood so I have planted over 3000 and still going.......been at it for six years and hope to have it all up and running and fully sustainably by year 10.  

[Waterworks]

I would think part of the problem is that the council can't rate a Yurt or mud hut for council tax and so don't want to even think about allowing it. 

[ProDave]

1 minute ago, Waterworks said:

I would think part of the problem is that the council can't rate a Yurt or mud hut for council tax and so don't want to even think about allowing it. 

Why not?  They band a static caravan as band A for council tax.  A Yurt could be the same.