When is derelict really derelict?

[RichC]

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.

[joe90]

@scottishjohn May be able to help (but Scotland may be different) as his “project” was borderline (IMO) and he has done a lot of clearing up before applying for planning.

[ProDave]

I think a lot depends on where it is.

 

I suspect you are looking at individual houses in the countryside, which in many places would not get planning permission now.  Your only hope is the "replacement dwellings" policy and I suspect that is where they would argue it was not a dwelling but a ruin.

 

If it has a roof, windows and could be lived in then you would stand a better chance than if it were just a few crumbling walls.

[Ferdinand]

It's a spectrum and will depend on a number of factors, the location and the precise circumstances.

 

May be useful background:

 

As a family we used to live in a Listed House. There was a stable block, in use for storage, and the former site of two staff cottages, which had been demolished decades ago and all walls removed. The ground was still very hard, and something like a ground survey would find evidence. Plus we had photos of the cottages.

 

The  Council were very clear that they could not be rebuilt, but that the stables would be able to be turned into residential.

 

OTOH there are plenty of places where restoration has been permitted.

 

I think you need 2 things:

 

1 - That a building is still there are can be repaired (as opposed to rebuilt).

2 - That there is credible proof of the residential use.

 

With those two I think you could do it. Beyond that it may be possible, but then you are more reliant of circumstances to weigh in the balance of benefit in planning terms ... eg things like supporting affordable for locals, or being from a local family and supporting a local job etc.

 

F 

[Ferdinand]

On the definition, I think it is down to something being defensible as a "repair" not a "rebuild" (which revolves around eg there being a demonstrable amount of former fabric in existence before and afterwards - of proof of such), and proof of use, as the things to focus on.

 

I am sure there will be a definition in Planning or Case Law somewhere, or decisions which will build a jigsaw of such a definition, but I do not know it offhand.

 

and

 

https://www.farminguk.com/news/derelict-farm-buildings-at-risk-of-being-considered-abandoned-_47695.html

 

F

Edited June 6, 2020 by Ferdinand

[scottishjohn]

in scotland 

you must have full walls to where the roof would fix and then it is possible to ask to rebuild it 

with out full walls it is unlikely you will get a simple PP -to rebuild 

 If it still has a roof as well then maybe only building warrant is needed 

 ther are lots of other things they will throw at you . and of course all  must be to latest build codes 

has the ruin returned to nature -eg trees growing up inside it --that will be a big problem if it has --so trying to rebuild something that was last in use 200years ago --will not happen usually ,unless it is of historic interest --don,t go there 

when was it last habitated?

  mine was last lived in in 1966 and had a roof till 1975 -there is a cut off point inscotland -not sure of date --about 1960 I think --but check 

If it is listed, as my other one i have for sale is 

then you can make it wind and watertight without any permission ,as that is deemed as protecting the fabric  -then you would start with PP +BC  about what you wish to do 

One thing I did find out is that if it was built before 1947 ,then you can apply to double the footprint  of the building .

I certainlty don,t want to make mine bigger --pprobably will be smaller --but remember once you give up foot print  you cannot get the  unused bit back without more planning and maybe not then 

and once you have permission to rebuild it --you can then apply for a different build in a different spot  within the curtiledge of the the exsisting plot -

thats when planning really get involved and the arguments start with them 

none of above has anything to do with services  being avaialbale or in working order .

 

If it could at a strecth it could be classed as habitable --then its only building control  -building warrant you need to rebuild whats there to current building spec 

 

there wil be lots more things ,so i would always suggest you take professional advice right at the begiining of buying an old ruin -money spent then will be well spent

this is all info I have gleened from my chase of this property over the years

 

 starting point 

when was it last lived in ,does it have full sound  walls ,got a good access to a road.

I know of a nice ruin ,but its old track comes down to the main road A75 ,but there is no actual opening toa75 from  the track there cos it was so long ago it was used --and its on a bend 

no chance of getting a new entrance onto this main road -so you would need to make your own road through farmers field s and then get permission to join a "u" road --so not viable in my view 

Edited June 6, 2020 by scottishjohn

[scottishjohn]

2 hours ago, RichC said:

but say you were planning an off-grid rebuild - where would you stand? 

I could go off grid  as the origininal water supply will need major upgrades ,as it was water from a  sort  of stream

it starts as a spring which was stone culverted and comes to my ground through a hole in  a dyke

the spetic tank was built like a drystone dyke ,so would just leak out of the sides -obviously that will need to be replaced with modern system -,

mains electric  is possible at a price  as is mains water - that would need pump station to lift it 300ft up to the house  --but none of these have caused planning any problem so far

 and all of them are really BC department not planning 

 change of use will be your biggest hurdle if you are trying to turn a derilict barn or piggery ,farm building  into a house-that is planning who decide and that needs to be sorted before you do anything at all to the site

Edited June 6, 2020 by scottishjohn

[Temp]

I've read that it's quite hard for "residential use" status to be lost.

 

https://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1209006/material-change-use-q---dcp-section-432

 

Ihave been bothered by two apparently conflicting definitions on "abandonment". Definition 1 holds that an established use right cannot be abandoned by mere non-use. For such a use right to be abandoned there must be some intention to abandon.  Definition 2 holds that where a use ceases and the land/buildings remain unused for a considerable amount of time, it may be taken that the former use has been abandoned. Both cannot be right?



As with most court led concepts related to planning law "abandonment" continues to create confusion. The most recent judgment on the matter came from the Court of Appeal in Hughes v Secretary of State for the Environment [2000]. Here the test of intention was rejected in favour of an objective assessment related to the physical condition of the building. The appeal judges noted that in this case there had been prolonged and gross neglect which was not overcome by the appellant's stated intention to resume residential use.

In spite of this clarification, any judgment on this matter remains a matter of fact and degree and cases have shown that the time which has to elapse after cessation of use for "abandonment" to have occurred is extremely variable and to a large extent relies on the level of physical deterioration. The maximum period of non-use held not to constitute abandonment, that I am aware of, is over 40 years!

 

[Temp]

https://www.cheffins.co.uk/about/news/view,landowners-to-address-abandoned-rural-property_299.htm

 

Practice has demonstrated that there are three main factors in determining whether a property has been abandoned or not. These are the physical condition of the property, the length of non-occupation and the question of intervening uses.  If a property is totally derelict, lacking utility provisions and requires total rebuilding then it is likely that it may well be considered abandoned and have lost any residential use rights. This would mean that for a farmer or landowner to bring this property back into residential use they would need to obtain planning permission for a new home. This is clearly a subjective test. The period of non-occupation is also an indicator although there are no firm rules as to what is an acceptable period of non-use and there are cases where periods of several decades have not prevented confirmation of use rights. If a former residential property has been used to house livestock for a period of time, for example, then it also likely that the residential use rights will be considered to have been lost.

 

It does seem odd that possible abandonment can result in a situation where even repairs to a dwelling may require permission. The appropriate method of clarifying this, i.e. confirming that a property has not been abandoned, is to obtain a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use on application to the local authority. In the case of a dwelling such an application would be to confirm a lawful Class C3 (residential) use. An approved Certificate for a lawful C3 use which confirms residential use rights can then be used for a number of purposes. Firstly, a Certificate will allow the straightforward sale of the property to a prospective occupier. Secondly, a Certificate then enables an owner to apply for planning permission for a replacement dwelling on the site, and thirdly, a Certificate may be important for financial reasons i.e. increasing a valuation, loan security or other transactional purposes. Above all, a Certificate provides reassurance to the owner that they do indeed  still have a property asset and one which may well be worthy of investment and improvement. 

The process of seeking a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use is a relatively simply one requiring appropriate plans, completion of forms, and the compilation of a case setting out the property history with details of occupation, use and so forth. A fee is payable to the local authority. Therefore, for a modest outlay, there are clear financial advantages in securing a Certificate where doubts exists. Cheffins Planning & Development team deals with abandonment cases on a regular basis and are more than happy to offer impartial advice on these matters.

[RichC]

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.

 

 

[RichC]

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

Edited June 7, 2020 by RichC
Typo

[ToughButterCup]

18 hours ago, RichC said:

...

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.

....

You are correct.  As in Here be Dragons.

 

What an interesting question. You have me hooked. To help unravel this type of complex problem I always resort to Martin Goodhalls blog. No guarantee of a definitive answer but always interesting,  always evidence based. What more can a boy need? 

 

This link is a search to mentions of the term derelict in his blog

 

 

Just found this .... in farminguk.com

[RichC]

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.

[RichC]

19 hours ago, Ferdinand said:

I think you need 2 things:

 

1 - That a building is still there are can be repaired (as opposed to rebuilt).

2 - That there is credible proof of the residential use.

 

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

 

[joe90]

It always astounds me that in a country with a housing shortage local councils try hard to not let anyone build/rebuild.

[Ferdinand]

21 hours ago, scottishjohn said:

 

comes to my ground through a hole in  a dyke

 

 

Someone needs a Dutchman ...

[RichC]

2 hours ago, joe90 said:

It always astounds me that in a country with a housing shortage local councils try hard to not let anyone build/rebuild.

 

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. 

[ToughButterCup]

8 hours ago, RichC said:

...

both definitions ... need to be addressed

...

Exactly right.

And that's what hooked my interest. Because doing that isn't easy. Snatched moments reading here and there point to hints that may help answer your questions.  

My aim is to beat @Ferdinand to a well argued answer for you. 

 

You up for that F? 

[Ferdinand]

10 hours ago, joe90 said:

It always astounds me that in a country with a housing shortage local councils try hard to not let anyone build/rebuild.

 

I agree with that.

 

My peculiar view is that villages should be allowed to grow by 1% per year as a matter of national policy. No idea how to regulate it, or how to avoid corruption.

 

The way to avoid corruption may be a planning gain tax of 90%.

 

(I linked to the farminguk article as well, but it would be pretentious to mention that.) 

Edited June 7, 2020 by Ferdinand

[joe90]

1 minute ago, Ferdinand said:

My peculiar view is that villages should be allowed to grow by 1% per year

here here, IMO villages either grow or fail.

[scottishjohn]

1 minute ago, joe90 said:

My peculiar view is that villages should be allowed to grow by 1% per year

so village must be at least 100 dwellings then --  that would not work either 

It should be purely on the avialability of services --eg enough water capapcity 

[Ferdinand]

4 minutes ago, scottishjohn said:

so village must be at least 100 dwellings then --  that would not work either 

It should be purely on the avialability of services --eg enough water capapcity 

 

Well - if one is being a pendant it could either be one every x years, or at least one.

 

?

 

But I don't like the 'freeze it in aspic' heritage approach. 

 

It seems to me that one of the glories of the landscape here is slow growth of communities, and we have lost that since Planning was nationalised. And I want it back.

 

Really the only buildings that have grown slowly over centuries here are churches, and they are partly only able to continue doing it now as they have their own planning system.

Edited June 7, 2020 by Ferdinand

[scottishjohn]

1 minute ago, Ferdinand said:

Well - if one is being a pendant it could either be one every x years, or at least one.

at least one per year and or a percentage and providing enough services 

[Ferdinand]

2 minutes ago, scottishjohn said:

at least one per year and or a percentage and providing enough services 

 

Yep - I'm not fussed about the precise mechanism, but I want *something*.

 

To be fair, I think that Scotland has a better handle on this as they have the space to run a more flexible system with building in the open countryside etc. 

[joe90]

41 minutes ago, joe90 said:

37 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

My peculiar view is that villages should be allowed to grow by 1% per year

I should not  have quoted the 1% bit

 

34 minutes ago, scottishjohn said:

providing enough services 

my wife’s argument against allowing planning applications is there are not enough local “services” (doctors schools etc etc) but  it’s the old chicken and egg situation, if we wait fir the services nothing will be built, if houses are built ( in moderation) the services will have to follow.

Edited June 7, 2020 by joe90