Forestry workers dwelling.... and that thing called Planning!!

[Peat]

It is that easy, well apart from getting away with it for 10 years.

 

We only just managed the 4 years we needed.

 

Re your first point, even hobby forestry counts so what you heard was wrong.

 

Well i'm glad what I heard was wrong.

 

So the way I understand it, its 4 years for change of use of a pre existing building and 10 years for a new building (inc a 'caravan'?) Is this true? Were you in a pre existing building and did you then prove lawful use after the enforcement notice had been served?

[agrimog]

most, if not all the planning departments , that i have had run ins with all seem to work on the principal of" how much can we make out of the applicant, and how much can we pocket", they seem to be the one area of councills that have really overstepped there authourity. the actual rules state that they can only advise the planning commitee, and that they, the commitee, decide, but it seems that the departments makeup there own rules and tell the commitees what to decide. a good lawyer who knows the rules is worth there weight in gold as they can force the corrupt bast***s in a councill to comply with the actuall written legislation, and not make there own rules up

[Justme]

Well i'm glad what I heard was wrong.

 

So the way I understand it, its 4 years for change of use of a pre existing building and 10 years for a new building (inc a 'caravan'?) Is this true? Were you in a pre existing building and did you then prove lawful use after the enforcement notice had been served?

 

 

Yes you are right, however the council applied the law wrong & used the 4 year rule against me even though it was a new build straight to residential use.

 

The planning inspector gave them multiple chances to use the 10 year rule but they did not. In the end they had to produce a document saying that they would not hold him accountable for it (we had to drop the CLUD application) & that win or loose they would not then try to go after us using the other rule & that win or loose they would not enforce on the use of the building. IE at the 4 year point we could win to keep the building but have no lawful use of it. So the building would stay but we could not use it for anything.

 

They (the council) insisted that residential was always 4 years even for new build when its only 4 years for a conversion.

 

So if you want to beat the 10 year rule build a building & use it for one day as something else then convert it in to residential.

 

Crazy but true.

 

The whole first day of the 3 day inquiry was taken up by that legal argument & about 2 hours of the last day.

[Peat]

Well that worked out alright then. Congrats!

 

A similar thing happened to some friends of mine. They retrospectively applied for planning permission for a forestry tied dwelling (yurts) at great expense. The council insisted that they were granted lawful use under the 4 year rule. Basically the council couldn't be bothered to process the application. They were happy to have a secure place to live but pissed off that it came with no forestry tie because they don't want townies living there in the future without working the woods, if they or their kids eventually decide to sell.

[Justme]

Well that worked out alright then. Congrats!

 

A similar thing happened to some friends of mine. They retrospectively applied for planning permission for a forestry tied dwelling (yurts) at great expense. The council insisted that they were granted lawful use under the 4 year rule. Basically the council couldn't be bothered to process the application. They were happy to have a secure place to live but pissed off that it came with no forestry tie because they don't want townies living there in the future without working the woods, if they or their kids eventually decide to sell.

 

Cheers.

 

They can add a covenant to the deeds.

[Peat]

They were told that if the new owners broke the covenant, they would have to sue them for anything to happen, so they didn't bother.

[Justme]

What about a claw back in the contract?

 

Its done a lot with land in case the new owners gets full planning.

[jamesfwpurdy]

Didn't it cost something like 20k to build and most of that went to the architect and structural engineer ?

 

T'was the best grand designs ever.

 

Definately the best. I must have watched it ten or more times, normally to a cry of "Urgh not this one again!!!!".

[bankhouse builder]

Hi

My advise would be get planning for an agricultural building that you could convert at a later stage don't make it too domestic looking at first if you use a steel frame get your designer to beef up the frame so that it would convert to a domestic dwelling (wind and snow loading). I have said steel frame as our lpa tend to refuse anybody wanting to build a traditional looking stone barn as they believe that these will be converted but usually if taken to appeal that gets overturned but they then apply a raft of conditions to make life difficult for you.

With the acreage you have you should be able to get this on an agricultural determination . This requires you to give the lpa 21 days notice that you are intending to construct the building if they don't respond in the 21 days then you can just go ahead and build it.

Once built give it a reasonable period of time then apply for conversion as the building is already there it is harder for them to refuse permission but make sure you have put in any openings for windows and doors prior to your application for conversion as they try and refuse any additional openings in the structure I would probably just apply for a simple open barn roof and no side cladding and then put the side cladding/walls in over time.

If after all that you didn't get permission to convert you still would have a usable building and you wont have wasted your money.

Planning is like a game of poker keep your cards close to your chest and be 1 move in front of your opponent.

Hope this is usefull

[monkeybusiness]

You just brightened my day :thumbup:

 

The planning inspector ripped them a new A hole in his findings. They were totally incompetent.

 

I wish we had gone for costs but the barrister advised not too.

 

If anyone needs a planning consultant (North Wales based) or barrister (Office in Manchester but will handle cases all over) then I can highly recommend the ones I used.

 

Not sure if I can post details or not so PM me if you need their details.

 

Was it Keith?!