|
Agricultural vs Garden use
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. Simon |
Agricultural vs Garden use
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. You can apply to the local planning authority for a certificate of lawful development that is normally granted. You can only use agricultural land for agricultural purposes not as a domestic garden. |
Agricultural vs Garden use
"Stan The Man" wrote in message ... . What can't I do on agricultural land that I can do on garden land - and vice versa? TIA. I'm sure that someone can give a better answer, but my understanding is that Agricultural land is designated "open countryside" with a presumption against development of housing or industry. domestic gardens are viewed differently in the eyes of the planning authority with no automatic presumption against development. To take an agricultural field into a garden opens it up to development at some future date. you can see the opportunity to buy a property on the village edge. Extend the garden by 30m into a filed, then a few years later sell off the garden as a building plot, or build a granny cottage on it. pk |
Agricultural vs Garden use
To take an agricultural field into a garden opens it up to
development at some future date. you can see the opportunity to buy a property on the village edge. Extend the garden by 30m into a filed, then a few years later sell off the garden as a building plot, or build a granny cottage on it. Unlikely to work because the developement limit will not include the extended part. That is not to say it has not happened but the planners are quite alert to such scams today. |
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. regards sarah -- Think of it as evolution in action. |
"sarah" wrote in message ... 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. David P is better on dates, but I think that after 11 years you have got 'presumed permission' or suchlike I'm not actually sure whether you need to notify them or not now. 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. To a certain extent it is purely a bureaucratic exercise, you are 'changing the use' so they want you to get permission from them to 'change the use' Because a garden is domestic, it will be rated differently, but you get some perks. As an example, I rent a field next to a domestic property. The chap has up to 60 pot bellied pigs on that property ( a third of an acre which includes the house) and no slurry facilities. Pig slurry runs off his 'garden' onto the field creating a stinking quagmire. If the pig slurry had been running the other way the Council would have been round there like a shot (within hours of the complaint) and all hell would have broken lose. In this case it has taken nearly a year for them to get round to sending him with a letter telling him he shouldn't do it and must stop. This flags up other things. I can keep 60 pigs (but need planning and environment agency permission for new buildings, slurry systems etc, the former depending upon size.) You on a garden can keep 60 pigs provided they aren't causing a nuisance Jim Webster |
In article , David P
writes 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'. Good luck. I can't add much to the above but suspect that planners are concerned that land added to a domestic curtillage may enjoy permitted rights not available on agricultural land. 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. It may help if the extra land is to the rear of your property rather than having road frontage and development potential. ISTR, many years ago, that a farmers wife was forced to destroy a rose garden she had planted on ag. land. regards -- Tim Lamb |
"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. -- 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] |
"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. If it is less than a certain percentage of the ground area of the house isn't it a permitted development? A mate of mine needed permission but his garage was so large that they made him sign a document to say he wasn't going to repair vehicles professionally Jim Webster |
"Jim Webster" 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. If it is less than a certain percentage of the ground area of the house isn't it a permitted development? Ah, you have a point but not quite that. There is a concept of permitted development up to some percentage of the *original* floor area. Note "original floor area" so it can only be done once. I would expect an attached garage to come within this permitted development but I don't know if it also applies to detached garages. I tried it about 10 years ago. In the mid 70s I had added an additional 60% floor space and a large detached garage. About 10 years ago we thought we might like a couple of conservatories and renew and extend the carport. I wrote to the council enquiring if I needed planning permission. Their response: "If I had completed the development that had been approved in 1972 then I needed planning permission (been paying rates on the extended property since 1975 but it was still "if"). I needed planning permission for the carport as well as the conservatories. In the event we never built the conservatories. When it came to it the wife decided she did not want all that glass. -- 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] |
"Old Codger" wrote in message ... "Jim Webster" 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. If it is less than a certain percentage of the ground area of the house isn't it a permitted development? Ah, you have a point but not quite that. There is a concept of permitted development up to some percentage of the *original* floor area. Note "original floor area" so it can only be done once. I would expect an attached garage to come within this permitted development but I don't know if it also applies to detached garages. I tried it about 10 years ago. In the mid 70s I had added an additional 60% floor space and a large detached garage. About 10 years ago we thought we might like a couple of conservatories and renew and extend the carport. I wrote to the council enquiring if I needed planning permission. Their response: "If I had completed the development that had been approved in 1972 then I needed planning permission (been paying rates on the extended property since 1975 but it was still "if"). I needed planning permission for the carport as well as the conservatories. In the event we never built the conservatories. When it came to it the wife decided she did not want all that glass. 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 Jim Webster |
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. regards -- Tim Lamb |
"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). IIRC also in conservation areas the permitted development rules are cancelled by the council. -- George Dawson Goat farmer |
VivienB wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 07:29:13 +0100, 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 Surely your solicitor/conveyancer should have sorted this out when you bought the property? Regards, VivienB You have a quaint view of the competance of such people - in 3 house purchases over the years, all the "problems" have been spotted by me reading the paperwork carefully, not by the solicitors which we have been paying. -- Larry Stoter |
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. Simon We encountered a simiar situation 4 years ago when we bought our present property. The owner's mother, recently deceased, had owned a strip of land about 45 ft wide and 250 ft long. 'Originally' (i.e. 1930s and earlier, this had been orchards. At some stage, before the 1960s (possibly earlier), a number of agricultural building had been erected - including a hen house and pig sty. The building were principly used for storage of agricultural machinery. During the 1970s, at the N end, a detached house was built and at the S end, a bungalow was built. The owners mother occupied the bungalow and the owner and his family occupied the house. When we were purchasing the house, I made the observation to our solicitor that it looked as though the 'garden' had never been a true garden. Had planning permission been obtained? If it had, nobody could prove it. There was evidence that planning consent had been given for the house but this only included ~15 ft of land to the rear of the house. During the intervening years, there had been further development, so there was housing on all sides. The District Council were worse than useless - on the 'phone, their attitude was "... we can't see what all the fuss is about, it's obviously a garden." Would they put that in writing? Absolutely not! The real problem was that our lender would not proceed until the whole problem was resolved. I even suggested that we split the purchase - the lender advance us the money to buy the house, over which there was no dispute, and we would pay cash for the land to the rear, and sort out the useage later. The lender refused (the Halifax, as it happens). We almost walked away but the combination of large rear garden and price was exactly what we wanted and could afford. The seller almost walked away until I carefully pointed out that it was a problem that they would have to deal with sooner or later, before selling, since any future purchaser would most likely also be relying on a mortgage and their lender would certainly make similar objections. 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. As a final spanner in the works, ~2 weeks before completion, I had a meeting with our solicitor and, going through the paperwork, noticed that the rear boundary to the garden was in the wrong place! Prior to selling the house, the owner had sold the bungalow. While his mother had been alive, they had never had a fence between the properties - when he sold, he'd just asked the purchaser where he wanted the fence and put it up. Subsequently, he then proceeded to try to sell to us most of the garden of the bungalow owner - who was not very please about it! It seems that the owner had never bother to tell his solicotor about the fence. To resolve this, the Land Registry had to come out and resurvey the boundaries - another 6 weeks! -- Larry Stoter |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter