"Peter Crosland" wrote in
:

Bloody local councils!

Why blame the Council? They administer a complex set of rules set by
central government. If people choose to ignore the rules and get
caught then they have nobody but themselves to blame! The reason for
the planning system is to provide a framework within development can
proceed in a manner that, by and large, prevents the mess that results
when everybody does as they please without regard for anyone else. Yes
it is imperfect and some Councils are stricter than others, but there
are a lot of checks and balances within the system. I don't doubt you
would be among the first to complain if people could just put up
buildings wherever they pleased. You should be lobbying your MP for
change if you want it.

In the real world, he'll be just as corrupt as the council.

As for your point about building, no, I wouldn't support the abolition of
all controls over putting up buildings. But what I said 'bloody local
councils' to was the report about how a local council made someone restore
his garden to farmland. I would certainly support the abolition of all
restrictions on turning pieces of farmland into gardens, which is what this
bloke did. There are no such restrictions in Ireland and it hasn't led the
sky to cave in Turning a field into a garden is not by any stretch of
the imagination an anti-social act, and does not require to be stomped on
or addressed by the authorities in the way that genuinely anti-social acts
do.

Chris

Janet Galpin and Oliver Patterson wrote in
:

The message
from Chris Nellist
contains these words:

"Drakanthus" wrote in
:

How do the English laws and regulations governing 'designated
agricultural land' come into play when someone wants to convert
farmland into garden??

What actually happens if someone buys somewhere in the country with
a few acres, and starts turning a field previously used for
agriculture or grazing into a large garden? Maybe rearranging a few
internal boundaries in the process.

There was a feature on the local (Midlands) TV news a few years ago.
A farmer, who was a very keen and competent gardener, had extended his
flower garden (quite substantially) into one of his fields - and made
a stunning job of it, with several flower borders a lawn, pond, summer
house etc. Really nice. BUT he didn't get planning permission / change
of usage agreed first. It made the news because the local authority
insisted he had to rip up the entire wonderful garden and convert it
back to farm land. What a colossal waste of time and money. The farmer
was absolutely gutted as you would expect.

Bloody local councils!

Is there still such a thing as a ten year rule whereby if you have
actually been changing the use of the land for ten years without anyone
protesting, it will be rubber-stamped by the council on application?

I don't know, but before we bought our current house (I did the checks and
conveyancing), we learnt that the previous owners had failed to obtain a
completion certificate for the conversion of a garage to residential use. I
contacted the council and they said it was too long ago for them to have
any objections now. It was less than 10 years, can't recall exactly how
long off-hand. In severe cases you can ask for a letter of comfort. In this
case though the differences between what was built and what was supposed to
be built were very minor, and I accepted the position having noted down the
name of the bloke from the council and the time of our conversation. In
more serious cases it would of course be sensible to get the council's view
in writing, i.e. a letter of comfort.

Chris

On 6 Jun 2003 21:03:15 GMT, Chris Nellist wrote:

They see it as the 'first move' to getting planning permission for
a dwelling

I'd just want it as a garden though! :-)

Your extending the "curtailment", ie the area of land on which you
could put up a shed (with in the laws that apply to sheds) without
planning permission.

So am I correct in thinking that the legal reason is that turning a
formerly farmed field into a garden counts as a 'change of use',

Yep, it is "change of use" from agriculture to domestic (or whatever
the term is they use for "garden".

--
Cheers
Dave. Remove "spam" for valid email.

On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 01:04:59 +0100, Janet Galpin and Oliver Patterson
wrote:

Is there still such a thing as a ten year rule whereby if you have
actually been changing the use of the land for ten years without
anyone protesting, it will be rubber-stamped by the council on
application?

There is with the Land Registry. ie you fence off and use a bit of
land for 10 (or is it 11?) years with *no* objections being raised you
can then apply for title on that land. My parents (and neighbours) all
"won" about 10 yards onto the end of their back gardens by quietly
taking over the back lane. I don't think this applies to planning
though only the title.

--
Cheers
Dave. Remove "spam" for valid email.

buildings wherever they pleased. You should be lobbying your MP for
change if you want it.

In the real world, he'll be just as corrupt as the council.


Can you provide a reasoned argument, supported by facts, for such a sweeping
generalisation that all councils and MPs are corrupt?

Subject: Conversion of farmland to garden
From: "Peter Crosland"
Date: 07/06/2003 12:15 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

buildings wherever they pleased. You should be lobbying your MP for
change if you want it.

In the real world, he'll be just as corrupt as the council.


Can you provide a reasoned argument, supported by facts, for such a sweeping
generalisation that all councils and MPs are corrupt?


Let the list of sleaze begin.
deep breath
Peter Mandelson,
Geoffery Robinson
Ron Davis
David Mellor
Archer
Michael Mates
Tim Yeo
Alun Duncan
Westminster Council
David Ashby
Hartley Booth
Michael Brown
Grahma Riddick
David Tredinik
Tim Smith
Niel Hamilton
Patrick Nicholls
Allan Stewart
Jonathon Aitken
Niel Hamilton
/deep breath
and doubtless many more who have yet to be caught, and the less said about
'sexed up' intelligence reports the better.

Reference for this list is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/202525.stm
****************************
Rhiannon
http://www.members.aol.com/mddestiny/entrypage.html
ClipclopclipclopBANGBANGclipclopclip
-- Amish driveby shooting

In article . network,
Dave Liquorice writes

There is with the Land Registry. ie you fence off and use a bit of
land for 10 (or is it 11?) years with *no* objections being raised you
can then apply for title on that land. My parents (and neighbours) all
"won" about 10 yards onto the end of their back gardens by quietly
taking over the back lane. I don't think this applies to planning
though only the title.


No it doesn't apply to planning, that has to be applied for. I 'believe'
that 2 owners before me 'took over' a piece of land at the bottom of his
garden, which of course became mine when I purchased the house, with
over half and acre. I wanted to keep chickens on this land and thought I
had better apply for planning permission. This was refused and the
Planning Department when making a visit said, 'No, not chickens, but we
will give you planning permission for houses'. It now has 2 blocks of
flats on it, BUT, there was a covenant on the land 'No Building'. This
had not been registered with Land Registry so my solicitor had it
removed.

Mike

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forthcoming reunions.
British Pacific Fleet Hayling Island Sept 5th - 8th
Castle Class Corvettes Assn. Isle of Wight. Oct 3rd - 6th.
R.N. Trafalgar Weekend Leamington Spa. Oct 10th - 13th. Plus many more

On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 11:42:00 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

Your extending the "curtailment"

Or you're extending the curtilage.

Yep, it is "change of use" from agriculture to domestic (or whatever
the term is they use for "garden".

Residential

Tony

Anthony R. Gold wrote in message ...
On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 11:42:00 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

Your extending the "curtailment"

Or you're extending the curtilage.


I think the max. that is ever likely to be accepted unless
you have a mansion is about an acre.

--
Anton

Chris Nellist wrote in message ...
As for your point about building, no, I wouldn't support the abolition
of
all controls over putting up buildings. But what I said 'bloody local
councils' to was the report about how a local council made someone
restore
his garden to farmland. I would certainly support the abolition of all
restrictions on turning pieces of farmland into gardens, which is what
this
bloke did. There are no such restrictions in Ireland and it hasn't led
the
sky to cave in Turning a field into a garden is not by any stretch
of
the imagination an anti-social act, and does not require to be stomped
on
or addressed by the authorities in the way that genuinely anti-social
acts
do.

The problem many councils would have with that is that people taking
over bits of field to create a new garden, then new owners come along
and think. mm it would be nice to build a small bungalow for granny on
that area of garden. So they apply to do that, then that place for
granny gets sold, the new owners buy some more field, and so unto the
whole field is suddenly a line of new houses.

Mike
www.british-naturism.org.uk

Subject: Conversion of farmland to garden
From: "Michael Berridge"
Date: 07/06/2003 15:20 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

, and so unto the
whole field is suddenly a line of new houses.


And with the proviso of, so long as it isn't bought by a huge company with the
express intention of buiding houses and profiteering, what is wrong with that?
What is wrong with people building on their own property as long as it doesn't
hurt anyone else? Especially if the field isn't being used , there is tonnes of
empty fields round my way which never have either crops or animals in them, wha
is wrong with a few houses especially with a housing shortage pushing up house
values here...ah I get it now. It keeps the value of houses alread there high,
by ensuring the market is not expanded, silly of me, should just of asked where
the money was.
****************************
Rhiannon
http://www.members.aol.com/mddestiny/entrypage.html
ClipclopclipclopBANGBANGclipclopclip
-- Amish driveby shooting

In article , Chris Nellist
writes

As for your point about building, no, I wouldn't support the abolition of
all controls over putting up buildings. But what I said 'bloody local
councils' to was the report about how a local council made someone restore
his garden to farmland. I would certainly support the abolition of all
restrictions on turning pieces of farmland into gardens, which is what this
bloke did. There are no such restrictions in Ireland and it hasn't led the
sky to cave in Turning a field into a garden is not by any stretch of
the imagination an anti-social act, and does not require to be stomped on
or addressed by the authorities in the way that genuinely anti-social acts
do.

Oh, come off it! If all the converted barns in the Yorkshire Dales were
to start have 1 acre gardens around them, it would change the character
a great deal! OK, I know you're saying that in Ireland that hasn't
happened, but in Ireland you don't have such pressure on buildings as we
do here, or so many people wanting second homes or retirement homes
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

I've had problems with this, and I am no expert but it is more possible to
get councils to agree if you are prepared to add some species of reversion
clause (non-technical use of language here) such that in so many years or on
change of ownership the land reverts to agricultural use. I don't think this
is advertised but it certainly does happen.

I've had problems with this, and I am no expert but it is more possible to
get councils to agree if you are prepared to add some species of reversion
clause (non-technical use of language here) such that in so many years or
on
change of ownership the land reverts to agricultural use. I don't think
this
is advertised but it certainly does happen.

Certainly there is a mechanism to do this. One of the prime reasons for
restricting extension of gardens into agricultural land is that there is a
presumption in favour of development with the domestic curtilage. Therefore
if the garden is extended without restriction it could open the way to more
houses being built on land that would not otherwise be permitted. Usually a
legally binding agreement is required that prevents the land being separated
form the existing house.

Can you provide a reasoned argument, supported by facts, for such a
sweeping
generalisation that all councils and MPs are corrupt?


Let the list of sleaze begin.
deep breath
Peter Mandelson,
Geoffery Robinson
Ron Davis
David Mellor
Archer
Michael Mates
Tim Yeo
Alun Duncan
Westminster Council
David Ashby
Hartley Booth
Michael Brown
Grahma Riddick
David Tredinik
Tim Smith
Niel Hamilton
Patrick Nicholls
Allan Stewart
Jonathon Aitken
Niel Hamilton
/deep breath
and doubtless many more who have yet to be caught, and the less said about
'sexed up' intelligence reports the better.

And this is your example of facts and reasoned argument? Exactly how many of
these have been convicted of corruption and where are the other councils
that you assume are corrupt? You cannot even spell their names correctly!