A colleague of mine applied for planning permission to build a 'granny
annexe'. At that point, the planners said 'wait a minute ... there
should be a field here, not a garden ..' and he was told to reinstate
the field and the original boundary. He felt especially peeved as it had
been the previous owner who'd made the change!

The buyer or his solicitor should have found this out before he bought it.
Which is why, as a result of a recent court case, solicitors are insisting
sellers provide a declaration and/or proof that all development has been
done with permission. This applies to building regulations approval as well.
The bottom line now is that without the required approvals a property
becomes unsaleable. If the seller makes a false declaration then they are
liable for the consequences. AFAICR the case in point cost the seller some
£67,000.

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...

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

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', even
if
it
wouldn't involve any actual building, the same way as converting an
urban
garage into an office does?

Exactly! The change of use from agricultural use to domestic requires
planning permission. The are numerous pieces of legislation affecting
planning and it is not practical to quote them but it is the same basic
stuff as if you want to build a house. If you want to do it go and talk
to
your local planners who will give you an idea of the likelihood of the
request being granted. Unless you are wanting to take a large amount of
prime agricultural land then DEFRA will not be involved.


Also speak to your neighbours - as any objections they make could be
significant, and if you know them (which ideally you should) speak to your
parish councillors.

The way thing are at present the "rules" are everything, but in a few years
from now I expect local people will have much more say. But for this to
work folks need to have some idea of what rules it is reasonable to inflict
on their neighbours and it will vary from place to place.

A recent change in the law which might be significant in some cases is the
law regarding permanent pasture. As of this year even farmers need to get
permission to plough land that hasn't been ploughed for many years.

As for what most folks on farms do - well it's normal these days to have a
garden of some sort close to any house and a vegetable plot either by the
house of in the corner of a field. No farmer would ever apply for planning
permission to do either of these. Traditionally an acre or two of orchard
close to the house is normal too. To my mind doing anything more than this
in an area where most land is still used for farming is inappropriate and
looks wrong anyway. Though I wouldn't deny anyone the opportunity to make
their own mistakes - what's the harm?

Michael Saunby

"Michael Berridge" wrote in
:

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.

Councils could prevent that by keeping to a firm policy on building.
There's no need to stop people lawning over bits of cabbage-fields. It
would only be the thin end of the wedge if the council allowed it to be. If
any council actually states such a fear as their reason, I hope it gets
challenged some time - an applicant would surely have a strong case at
judicial review if they say 'look, I'm not applying to do what the Council
say they fear someone may do in the future'.

Chris

Kay Easton wrote in
:

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!

I don't see that as a problem though, and definitely not as something
anti-social. It's not the same as the enclosure of common land or open
moorland, which is indeed anti-social.

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

In parts of western Ireland, there are quite a lot of second homes and
indeed purpose-built second homes.

Chris

"Peter Crosland" wrote in
:

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.

Ah, I see. I didn't know this before I posted something a few moments ago.
So this explains why the councils fear it as the thin end of the wedge,
then!

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.

I'd have no problem with that.

Chris

The message
from Chris Nellist
contains these words:

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.

If you ever want to sell that property, the buyer (or his mortgagor)
is likely to want a letter of comfort; which should properly have been
applied for by your vendor, because they should have paid the costs.
LOC's are not reserved for severe cases and I've found no problem
getting it on the two occasions we requested one.

Janet.

In article , Chris Nellist
writes
Kay Easton wrote in
:

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!

I don't see that as a problem though, and definitely not as something
anti-social. It's not the same as the enclosure of common land or open
moorland, which is indeed anti-social.

I do see it as a problem! The bare limestone scenery is something we
don't have a lot of.

And as for anti-social - it could have an adverse effect on tourism, on
which many peoples livelihoods depend.

Not to mention further reducing habitats for wild flowers.

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

In parts of western Ireland, there are quite a lot of second homes and
indeed purpose-built second homes.

In the Dales and other similar areas of natural beauty, whole villages
are almost entirely second homes, and there are more barn conversions
than original barns
--
Kay Easton

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

I do see it as a problem! The bare limestone scenery is something we
don't have a lot of.

but no one is talking about converting areas of bare limestone or natural
habitats. That would be a problem but completely different to turning
farmland into gardens.
Hayley

long off-hand. In severe cases you can ask for a letter of comfort.


Do you mean a certificate of lawfulness also known as a CLEUD? Not a
problem if the enforcement powers have expired but you do have to pay for
it. As Janet correctly says you will find your house unsaleable without.

In article , hayley hayley.ry
writes
I do see it as a problem! The bare limestone scenery is something we
don't have a lot of.

but no one is talking about converting areas of bare limestone or natural
habitats. That would be a problem but completely different to turning
farmland into gardens.

The bare referred to the scenery not to the limestone! - ie the short
grass and stone walls so typical of the Western Dales - all of it the
result of sheep farming.

--
Kay Easton

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

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ill.network...
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.


Obtaining title via 'adverse possession', which is what you have described,
has nothing to do with planning consent. However, it certainly used to be
the case, at least from the 1960s, that if land had been used for a very
long time for a purpose for which planning consent was required, but which
had not been obtained, the user probably had established use rights, and
could obtain an established use certificate. This meant the planning
authority could not take enforcement action to terminate the otherwise
unlawful use without compensation until there was a change in ownership.
This was replaced from 1992 by the slightly different Lawful Development
Certificate.

"Michael Berridge" wrote in message
...

Chris Nellist wrote in message ...
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. Is this in contravention of the title deeds, or
planning
regs, or do neighbouring farmers who could use the land for farming
have
the right to object, or...? Just wondered how the system works.

There have been a couple of fairly recent, the last few years, cases
where someone has done just that, in all cases they were ordered to
return the land to its original state. You do need to contact the local
council.


There have been a few high profile cases, and, technically, it is correct
that one should obtain planning consent for change of use, before the event,
but I wonder how many people have made such a change informally in the past
and got away with it?

There have been a few high profile cases, and, technically, it is correct
that one should obtain planning consent for change of use, before the
event,
but I wonder how many people have made such a change informally in the
past
and got away with it?

It undoubtedly happens all the time. That is not to say that it is wise to
do so. The difficulty arises now because of a recent court case where
unauthorised work had been done. As a result any prudent solicitor will
require written confirmation that all building regulation and planning
permissions have been granted. Making a false declaration can prove very
costly. If I recall correctly the case referred to cost the vendor some
£67,000 in compensation and costs.

Xref: kermit uk.rec.gardening:148788 uk.people.rural:7519


"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
There have been a few high profile cases, and, technically, it is
correct
that one should obtain planning consent for change of use, before the
event,
but I wonder how many people have made such a change informally in the
past
and got away with it?

It undoubtedly happens all the time. That is not to say that it is wise to
do so. The difficulty arises now because of a recent court case where
unauthorised work had been done. As a result any prudent solicitor will
require written confirmation that all building regulation and planning
permissions have been granted. Making a false declaration can prove very
costly. If I recall correctly the case referred to cost the vendor some
£67,000 in compensation and costs.



I'm glad to hear that such enquiries are now being made as a matter of
course at conveyancing stage, since it is unreasonable to 'stick' the
purchaser with the consequences of a predecessor's omissions. However, if
the predecessor merely wished to occupy some additional land as garden for
his own enjoyment during his period of ownership, he will have achieved
that, whereas if he had applied for consent at the outset, he might not.