"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...

"mich" wrote in message
...

"mrcheerful" wrote in message
...



So just to get this right, you want to buy a field, that may
have no
planning permission for a dwelling and no prospect of it?

I think if it already has a building on it and piped water and leccy
to
it
( no matter what condition) essentially the right to planning
permission
exists for a dwelling! Hence he asked for land and building.


Of course it doesnt. For a start he said a building, which isnt the same
as
a dwelling. There have been many court cases on this, for example I
recall
reading about a farmer who had to demolish some 'pig sties' that bore a
remarkable resemblance to a detached bungalow.

If this is the same case I know of then the reason the woman had to
demolish her "pig sty" style bungalow was because she had not applied for
planning permission before coverting it. In fact she had not applied for ANY
planning permission at all ( including the pig sty) if I recall ( and I
should the person doesnt live a stones throw away!).

She miffed the planners by not making an application first. She further
miffed them by not complying with instructions to take it down and apply for
planning permission and then really pee'd them off by asking for
retrospective permission if I recall the situation.

Maybe not where you live, but looking at current planning permissions
being given where I am , he would have a considerably increased chance of
getting planning permission to convert an old disused building of any
description including a shed ( or even knock it down and build again), than
he would of getting planning permission for building on land with nothing on
it

It depends on your planners and you area I suspect.
So blanket dismissals of other peoples views as rubbish or b****** or even
citing cases such as the one you do is not really accurate is it? Its not
polite either.



--
email replies not necessary but to contact use;

tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com