Found an Old Map...

[harry_angel]

"The curtilage of the dwelling house" is a notoriously tricky thing to define, regarding properties with land.

 

And on this subject, I found an 1870 map of my plot recently (see below) which clearly shows a building of some description smack bang outside what the council would probably deem the curtilage of the dwelling house.

 

The dwelling house in question was actually built in 1918, so doesn't even appear on said map.

 

This new (old) outbuilding then disappears from later maps, as do some other thin buildings which appear to be agricultural buildings (stables or pig pens at a push).

 

My question is: this big outbuilding that I've discovered...can I leverage this in any way? Under PD could I construct a similar sized building exactly where it used to be and if pursued argue:

 

a) I did it under PD (and it's vaguely equidistant from current dwelling house, as other outbuildings are)*

b) this structure merely replaces what was originally there (in 1870)

 

Or do outbuildings/what was there pre a certain date simply not count?

 

Love to hear from anyone more learned than I!

 

* vaguely is probably stretching it. Slightly. 

[ProDave]

That's a bit like saying "in 1890 my site was a saw mill,  Can I re open the saw mill?" The answer would be no, it has since had a change of use to dwelling.

 

And I think the "replacement dwelling" rule requires there still to be a dwelling to replace, not some lines on an old map.

 

But it is of interesting to look at all the old maps and see what was there before.  There cannot be much land that has never had something on it.

[harry_angel]

Thanks @ProDave. I'm not after a dwelling, however. I simply want to put an outbuilding there (gym). Genuinely.

 

If I applied conventionally it would be "no, this isn't within the curtilage of the dwelling house".

 

If I did it under PD I was wondering - as the current, old, crumbling outbuildings count towards the total floor area "in play" - whether ones which used to stand would count, too.

 

The building in question hasn't had any change of use - it's just, gone.

[bassanclan]

In planning they always refer to the "original house" as it stood in 1960 or thereabouts, so an 1870 map won't help. Even if you can prove it was there in 1960 it wouldn't help as it's gone now! Why not build within your domestic curtilage?

 

You would need to prove that your proposed outbuilding falls within the curtilage of the domestic dwelling. If its on agricultural land you are allowed to build agricultural buildings to a certain extent if you have sufficient land.

[Mr Punter]

No.  The ex building will not affect your PD rights.

[Gone West]

The local farmer here got permission to double the size of the footprint of his farmhouse because he found a 1930s map showing a much larger dwelling on the site.

[Mr Punter]

4 minutes ago, PeterStarck said:

The local farmer here got permission to double the size of the footprint of his farmhouse because he found a 1930s map showing a much larger dwelling on the site.

 

But not PD?

[harry_angel]

@PeterStarck interesting...that's sortof what I was referring to.

 

The logic runs: the current outbuildings on the plot are "in play" in terms of being able to be replaced, or counting towards the total footprint, so unless one is talking about the dwelling house (which we're not) there's a school of thought that what was originally there should be in play, too.

 

I mean: if I remove one of my current outbuildings tomorrow, yes it would be judicious to apply to the council (for whatever I want to replace it with) BEFORE demolishing it, but nonetheless by removing it I don't think I'm completely eradicating any footprint value held within it.

 

Green belt law in particular seems to be particularly fixated on brand new never-seen-before structures popping up, but more relaxed around replacing what once was...

[bassanclan]

Have you looked on 

https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/

To see when approximately it was knocked down?

 

If it doesn't currently exist there can be no permitted development. It's often why you see applications for DEMOLISH and rebuild.

[Gone West]

3 hours ago, Mr Punter said:

 

But not PD?

Correct

[Gone West]

1 hour ago, harry_angel said:

@PeterStarck interesting...that's sortof what I was referring to.

 

The logic runs: the current outbuildings on the plot are "in play" in terms of being able to be replaced, or counting towards the total footprint, so unless one is talking about the dwelling house (which we're not) there's a school of thought that what was originally there should be in play, too.

 

I mean: if I remove one of my current outbuildings tomorrow, yes it would be judicious to apply to the council (for whatever I want to replace it with) BEFORE demolishing it, but nonetheless by removing it I don't think I'm completely eradicating any footprint value held within it.

 

Green belt law in particular seems to be particularly fixated on brand new never-seen-before structures popping up, but more relaxed around replacing what once was...

I don't know anything about Green Belt law but there does seem to be some logic about the argument, although I'm not sure logic comes into Planners decisions.

[Temp]

There is a concept of a particular use being abandoned. In the context of a derelict house it has to be pretty far gone before that happens but near us there is an old farmhouse thats derelict but still exists, still has most of its roof. The planners have previously said that if the owner wanted to bring it back into use then planning permission would be required because they considered use as a dwelling had been abandoned. They made no comment on the likelihood of it being granted.

[Temp]

Is it  currently agricultural land over 5 hectares? If so you don't need planning to put an agricultural building on the land but it has to be for agricultural use and more than 25m from a road. In a few years you could then apply to convert part of it. In 10 years it might well qualify for Permitted Development Rights to convert it to a new dwelling.

[harry_angel]

@Temp no total plot is 3 acres, and the paddocks are not in current agricultural use and haven't been for some time.

 

So to initiate the sequence you describe it would be a full planning app for some stables or something, would it?

 

 

[Ferdinand]

X marks the spot where you need to build it...

 

(Sorry ? )

Edited May 13, 2020 by Ferdinand

[Randomiser]

6 hours ago, harry_angel said:

@Temp no total plot is 3 acres, and the paddocks are not in current agricultural use and haven't been for some time.

 

So to initiate the sequence you describe it would be a full planning app for some stables or something, would it?

 

 

I think equestrian buildings are specifically from the agricultural conversion provisions.

[Temp]

16 hours ago, harry_angel said:

@Temp no total plot is 3 acres, and the paddocks are not in current agricultural use and haven't been for some time.

 

So to initiate the sequence you describe it would be a full planning app for some stables or something, would it?

 

 

 

Possibly but they could also remove Permitted Development Rights when granting such a new permission.

[harry_angel]

@Temp cheers, appreciate the head's up.