In article , David P
wrote:

In article ,
says...
Stan The Man wrote:

Part of my garden originally belonged to the neighbouring farmer; the
previous owner of my property bought half a field from him 15 years ago
and has since integrated it into the original garden here - laying
turf, planting shrubs, creating borders, laying a brick patio, putting
up a couple of garden sheds, etc. However, she never applied to the
local authority to change the use of the acquired land from
agricultural to garden use. I'm led to believe that it should be
straighforward for me to make an application now for garden use based
on lawful development over more than 10 years. But I am curious to know
why I need to do it. What can't I do on agricultural land that I can do
on garden land - and vice versa? TIA.

Forgive the x-post, but I know some denizens of uk.business.agriculture
may be able to advise you.

First thing to do is to stack up the evidence. Precise dates of purchase
and laying out. Any neighbours who will give a sworn statement on the
dates/years when it all happened? Original owner/farmer to give
evidence?

Planners *hate* lawful use applications and will do everything they can
to demolish the arguments.

As to what you can do if it its ag.- basically just put it down to grass
and make sure there are no flower beds or other 'domestic' items on or
across it. This has been known to include [in a case in Derbyshire some
years ago] a clothes line across the 'ag. land'.

Thank you (and others) for your helpful replies. I have already
compiled the evidence and submitted an application to the local council
- which I'm told has been approved by the planning officer and is
awaiting a rubber stamp from their legal department.

Apropos of another issue raised in this thread, I have fully
investigated my Permitted Development Rights and provided that any
erection is a) less than 4m tall to the apex; b) no nearer the road
than the front of my house; c) at least 5m away from my house; and d)
would not, in aggregate with my other outbuildings, cover more than 50
percent of my garden, I am permitted to erect as many buildings as I
desire -- regardless of how ugly they are, whether they overlook
neighbours' properties, whether I lay services to them for
accommodation purposes, etc, etc. In essence, as long as the basic
guidelines are adhered to, the local planners have no further interest
in permitted development buildings.

Four metres isn't enough for a 2-storey building of course. But it's
enough for a single storey garden studio, granny annexe, double, triple
or quadruple garage, etc. In fact, I plan to use my permitted
development rights to erect a large garage on the formerly agricultural
part of my garden.

There's some irony here since anyone who exploits their permitted
development rights to the full and without taste or consideration for
others could well end up with a grotesque blot on the landscape, even
here in leafy Berkshire.

Simon

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In article , Jim Webster
writes

I knew there was something about permitted development for domestic but
it
wasn't something I have ever had anything to do with. Remember once
seeing a
brick built house being built over a timber and tin smaller building
while
that was still standing

Section 11 restricts greenbelt house extensions to 40% of the original.
This is to prevent people converting gamekeepers cottages to desirable
mansions.

Once upon a time, an assessment was required to remove grade 1
agricultural land from production. I suspect this is no longer enforced.


I cannot be sure but I remember MAFF not that long ago saying that it would
not stand in the way of building on Grade 3, so Grade 1 might possibly still
be covered

Jim Webster

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
In article , David P
wrote:

There's some irony here since anyone who exploits their permitted
development rights to the full and without taste or consideration for
others could well end up with a grotesque blot on the landscape, even
here in leafy Berkshire.


Ah but remember, you are a ratepayer, but more importantly part of a large
section of the electorate, the home owner, that the government doesn't dare
annoy too much. If you were some sort of counter-revolutionary or even worse
a landowner, then the full rigor of the law could be brought on your head

cynicism aside, best of luck with the development

Jim Webster

Simon

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
Part of my garden originally belonged to the neighbouring farmer; the
previous owner of my property bought half a field from him 15 years ago
and has since integrated it into the original garden here - laying
turf, planting shrubs, creating borders, laying a brick patio, putting
up a couple of garden sheds, etc. However, she never applied to the
local authority to change the use of the acquired land from
agricultural to garden use. I'm led to believe that it should be
straighforward for me to make an application now for garden use based
on lawful development over more than 10 years. But I am curious to know
why I need to do it. What can't I do on agricultural land that I can do
on garden land - and vice versa? TIA.

Not far from me, a woman bought some land off a farmer. She was not allowed
to change the use from agricultural. She simply laid a lawn and planted 3
apple trees on it.

In article k, Larry
Stoter wrote:

(snip)

The owner went through the process of getting a Certificate of Lawful
Use. No real problem, since the neighbours didn't want anybody keeping
pigs or hens on the land! However, this process took over 6 months!

Once the certificate was finally issued, the lender was prepared to
proceed. Something that did come out in all this was that our solicitor
was not only acting for us but was also acting for the lender, creating
a clear conflict of interest. Apparently, this is standard practise. I
would, however, strongly advise anybody buying a house to insist that
their solicitor/conveyancer act solely for them - if we had done this,
the whole problem might not have arisen.

Indeed it is standard practice and I think it's a good thing. It's
certainly a good thing, if inconvenient, to get all permissions cleared
before buying a house, if only to ensure a) that you're not buying
something that will have to be pulled down and b) that when you come to
sell, the process will be swift and smooth. Nor would anything have
been different had separate legal advisors been operating for your
mortgage lender: they would still have to see all the documentation and
should still flag up any irregularities.

(snip)

Simon

Jim Webster writes
Ah but remember, you are a ratepayer, but more importantly part of a large
section of the electorate, the home owner, that the government doesn't dare
annoy too much. If you were some sort of counter-revolutionary or even worse
a landowner, then the full rigor of the law could be brought on your head

cynicism aside, best of luck with the development

Not cynicism, merely a statement of fact.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

BTOPENWORLD address about to cease. DEMON address no longer in use.
Use
still functions.

In article , Tim Lamb
wrote:

ISTR, many years ago, that a farmers wife was forced to destroy a rose
garden she had planted on ag. land.

Hmmm. What if you sell a few cut flowers?

or veg?

Cheerio,

--


http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

"GeorgeDawson" wrote in message

"Old Codger" wrote in message
...
"Tim Lamb" wrote in message


I have been told that you can have as many domestic garages as you
like in your garden; it being assumed that you will not want to
build more than you need.

Don't know about that. Do know that you need planning permission to
build a garage in your garden.

--

Under some conditions you can build upto a certain percentage of the
original house without pp. But not in the curtilage of a listed
building, not in front of the line of the house, but needs to be
within a certain distance (garden summerhouses at the end of a long
garden can be a problem).

Nah, they are sheds.

I have one shed approx 80ft away from house, one summerhouse about 100ft
away and another shed about 200ft away. All put up without planning
permission and there has never been any suggestion that I should have
obtained planning permission for any of them.

Not in a conservation area though.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

"Stan The Man" wrote in message


Apropos of another issue raised in this thread, I have fully
investigated my Permitted Development Rights and provided that any
erection is a) less than 4m tall to the apex; b) no nearer the road
than the front of my house; c) at least 5m away from my house; and d)
would not, in aggregate with my other outbuildings, cover more than 50
percent of my garden, I am permitted to erect as many buildings as I
desire -- regardless of how ugly they are, whether they overlook
neighbours' properties, whether I lay services to them for
accommodation purposes, etc, etc. In essence, as long as the basic
guidelines are adhered to, the local planners have no further interest
in permitted development buildings.

Interesting. Is this relatively recent and is it in addition to extensions
(attached) less than some percentage of the original floor area? Although I
was not looking at non attached buildings there was no indication of this
type of permitted development when I investigated probably a little over ten
years ago.

You might have trouble if you build on a boundary. Unless it has changed,
you need planning permission for any boundary wall or fence that is over two
metres tall.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

David P wrote:

OK, so you sell a few at the 'farm' gate, or maybe at a local market
... ?


Environmental health would probably then get in on the act somewhere
along the line.

Due diligence here
Don't do anything stupid and they are not involved
Do something stupid and the heavens descend
If you are selling directly to the consumer then its up to you to advise
yourself of good food practise but you do not have to be registered if you
are small
I have not looked up the veggie figures but as a comparison if you have less
than 250 chickens and do not sell to anyone but the end consumer and do not
call yourself "free range" or any other special marketing term you do not
have to be a registered producer.
Yes ES can come in any time but one would not sell anything that was not
produced fit for human consumption anyway would one?

Wasn't it them that are wanting to stop the WI from
baking sponge cakes?

Not sure it was them wanting to stop them - it was them left with the job of
sorting the mess out
ES rarely generate legislation they are just the poor bu###rs left to deal
with the mess
In general we have always found ES great to work with as long as you know
your own business.

--
regards
Jill Bowis

Pure bred utility chickens and ducks
Housing; Equipment, Books, Videos, Gifts
Herbaceous; Herb and Alpine nursery
Holidays in Scotland and Wales
http://www.kintaline.co.uk

In article , Stan The Man
writes

Apropos of another issue raised in this thread, I have fully
investigated my Permitted Development Rights and provided that any
erection is a) less than 4m tall to the apex; b) no nearer the road
than the front of my house; c) at least 5m away from my house; and d)
would not, in aggregate with my other outbuildings, cover more than 50
percent of my garden, I am permitted to erect as many buildings as I
desire -- regardless of how ugly they are, whether they overlook
neighbours' properties, whether I lay services to them for
accommodation purposes, etc, etc. In essence, as long as the basic
guidelines are adhered to, the local planners have no further interest
in permitted development buildings.

Four metres isn't enough for a 2-storey building of course. But it's
enough for a single storey garden studio, granny annexe, double, triple
or quadruple garage, etc. In fact, I plan to use my permitted
development rights to erect a large garage on the formerly agricultural
part of my garden.

There's some irony here since anyone who exploits their permitted
development rights to the full and without taste or consideration for
others could well end up with a grotesque blot on the landscape, even
here in leafy Berkshire.

Quite. However they will not let you erect a *dwelling* without full
planning.

regards
--
Tim Lamb

In article , Janet
Baraclough.. wrote:

The message
from "Old Codger" contains these words:

"Stan The Man" wrote in message


Apropos of another issue raised in this thread, I have fully
investigated my Permitted Development Rights and provided that any
erection is a) less than 4m tall to the apex; b) no nearer the road
than the front of my house; c) at least 5m away from my house; and d)
would not, in aggregate with my other outbuildings, cover more than 50
percent of my garden, I am permitted to erect as many buildings as I
desire -- regardless of how ugly they are, whether they overlook
neighbours' properties, whether I lay services to them for
accommodation purposes, etc, etc. In essence, as long as the basic
guidelines are adhered to, the local planners have no further interest
in permitted development buildings.

Interesting. Is this relatively recent and is it in addition to extensions
(attached) less than some percentage of the original floor area? Although I
was not looking at non attached buildings there was no indication of this
type of permitted development when I investigated probably a little over ten
years ago.

The size of the main dwelling is irrelevant to permitted development
buildings which meet the criteria above. However, not everyone has
permitted development rights. As someone pointed out earlier, some
councils have revoked them. There's a summary of permitted development
rights he
http://www.planning-applications.co.....htm#buildings

You might have trouble if you build on a boundary.

I think Stan's list is incomplete. In Scotland at least, there are
further restrictions on buildings-that-don't-require-pp. They should be
6ft away from a boundary with a neighbour, made of "temporary" building
material such as wood or tin sheet, not used for human habitation, and
not attached to the domestic premises. So, you can't use one as a way to
extend the dwelling space.

In the UK, there is no 6ft no-go zone - but there is a height
restriction at the boundary. Nor are there any restrictions as to
building materials.

Simon

In message , Stan The Man
writes
Apropos of another issue raised in this thread, I have fully
investigated my Permitted Development Rights and provided that any
erection is a) less than 4m tall to the apex; b) no nearer the road
than the front of my house; c) at least 5m away from my house; and d)
would not, in aggregate with my other outbuildings, cover more than 50
percent of my garden, I am permitted to erect as many buildings as I
desire -- regardless of how ugly they are, whether they overlook
neighbours' properties,

You are not allowed to take someone's light by building too close or too
high to a neighbours property. The precise meaning of this is not always
clear, but it is a regulation quite separate from planning.



Regards


--
Charles Francis

In article , Stan The Man
wrote:

In the UK, there is no 6ft no-go zone - but there is a height
restriction at the boundary.

and should have written 'In England"...

Simon

Stan The Man wrote:

In article k, Larry
Stoter wrote:

(snip)

The owner went through the process of getting a Certificate of Lawful
Use. No real problem, since the neighbours didn't want anybody keeping
pigs or hens on the land! However, this process took over 6 months!

Once the certificate was finally issued, the lender was prepared to
proceed. Something that did come out in all this was that our solicitor
was not only acting for us but was also acting for the lender, creating
a clear conflict of interest. Apparently, this is standard practise. I
would, however, strongly advise anybody buying a house to insist that
their solicitor/conveyancer act solely for them - if we had done this,
the whole problem might not have arisen.

Indeed it is standard practice and I think it's a good thing. It's
certainly a good thing, if inconvenient, to get all permissions cleared
before buying a house, if only to ensure a) that you're not buying
something that will have to be pulled down and b) that when you come to
sell, the process will be swift and smooth. Nor would anything have
been different had separate legal advisors been operating for your
mortgage lender: they would still have to see all the documentation and
should still flag up any irregularities.

(snip)

Simon

No, it is not a good thing. It creates a potential for a direct conflict
of interest. It is not possible for the same solicitor to act both in my
interests and in the interests of the lender in the event that problems
arise.

Typical, in my opinion, of the nice, cosy sort of 'arrangement' that the
legal profession like because it is profitable.
--
Larry Stoter