congratulations rick and maggs

[Thomas-the-Terrano2]

thurrock rick, you havnt moved into lakeside i hope.CONGRATS KEV.

Lakeside? more like be under-lake next time that london gets one of those mega flood
tides eh? thames barrier already quoted as not enough, ffs talk of another one being
built. cheaper to relocate the valuable stuff to the midlands, you know near plank's new english assembly! the centre of englandshire. lol.

 

[solarman216]

thurrock rick, you havnt moved into lakeside i hope.CONGRATS KEV.

No would not want to live there thank you, Rick

 

[Deleted account DD]

So were does the ten year rule fit in?

I attended a planning meeting a few years back with my mate who was buying up some land and we went to hear the planning committee/objectors debate it.

Another one up at the same session was a chap who was a bit of a character who had bought up some old British Railway land and started to develop it, built a bungalow and moved in without planning permission.

At the hearing he got his way so long as no more development went on but i do remember them saying that as he'd only been there about six or seven years years he hadnt achieved blah blah (I was only listening to odd bits) but they decided to let him stay out of good grace to stop any further hassle.

Whats the score then???????

I genuinely dont know :nenau


if you go onto google maps and go to Burtree Lane Darlington and home in on lat / long 54.559556 -1.554750 youll see the nice bungalow he had built at that point :thumb2

 

[Thomas-the-Terrano2]

railway land, wouldnt that be brown field or industrial.

sounds positively charming, darling the 10:02 to Kings
Cross is late....

 

[lacroupade]

So were does the ten year rule fit in?

I attended a planning meeting a few years back with my mate who was buying up some land and we went to hear the planning committee/objectors debate it.

Another one up at the same session was a chap who was a bit of a character who had bought up some old British Railway land and started to develop it, built a bungalow and moved in without planning permission.

At the hearing he got his way so long as no more development went on but i do remember them saying that as he'd only been there about six or seven years years he hadnt achieved blah blah (I was only listening to odd bits) but they decided to let him stay out of good grace to stop any further hassle.

Whats the score then???????

I genuinely dont know :nenau


if you go onto google maps and go to Burtree Lane Darlington and home in on lat / long 54.559556 -1.554750 youll see the nice bungalow he had built at that point :thumb2

It revolves around change of use....for example, it you bought agricultural land and started running a scrapyard with PP for 'change of use', the council has ten years to clobber you.

But I thought from interpretation that it could sometimes also mean that if you built a house on farmland, even if you got away with the four year rule, the house couldn't be occupied because of the lands designation. But I'm sure Rick hasn't gone public (and bought beer!) without knowing where he stands.

 

[solarman216]

The ten year rule does usually apply to change of use, and the four year rule usually applies the the erection of a building , hence you could build a house on farm land and after four years they could not normally make you take it down, but also you could not live in it, you could only use it for agri related purpose, if however you got away with it for 10 years then all OK and you can live in it legally, but the 4 year rule on EXISTING buildings on agri land, is an odd one, that was why I did not find out about it for a few year after living here, had I known my 4 years would have been up 3.5 years ago, incidentally does any one know what happened to the guy who built the castle behind the straw bails, he took the bails down after 4 years which as far as the rules state the building can stay but he cant live in it, but I lost track and do not know the final out come, Rick

 

[lacroupade]

The ten year rule does usually apply to change of use, and the four year rule usually applies the the erection of a building , hence you could build a house on farm land and after four years they could not normally make you take it down, but also you could not live in it, you could only use it for agri related purpose, if however you got away with it for 10 years then all OK and you can live in it legally, but the 4 year rule on EXISTING buildings on agri land, is an odd one, that was why I did not find out about it for a few year after living here, had I known my 4 years would have been up 3.5 years ago, incidentally does any one know what happened to the guy who built the castle behind the straw bails, he took the bails down after 4 years which as far as the rules state the building can stay but he cant live in it, but I lost track and do not know the final out come, Rick

Looks like he lost in the end....

 

[solarman216]

The last update on this is Feb 2010, I am sure I have heard, of something since then, but have been unable to find it as yet, I will have to get onto the council site for his area and see, but that sort of thing takes me a long time, Rick

 

[solarman216]

OK been onto the Reigate council site and looked at all the official stuff and all is not what it seems, as is so often the case in the press, so no comparisons, twixt him and me, Rick

 

[lacroupade]

Hope this isn't bad news....sounds like yours is a different case, but shows the ba5tards don't give up...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/38/20110407/tuk-couple-loses-500k-home-faked-as-a-ha-107bc4a.html

 

[solarman216]

no mate he stood no chance, typical of getting it wrong, although the councils arguments are not correct either, but it matters little there was no way he was going to get that on the 4 year rule regarding existing buildings, you have to be fair, put up a farm building, call it existing and convert it, not really playing the game, on the other side of the coin had the enforcement officer here today re our letter about living in the converted stables, you should have seen his face when he walked in and saw our place, he was visibly shocked and the tone went off straight away to the point of giving suggestions how to avoid enforcement action by applying for a lawful development certificate now and he will send me the forms, in the end it is better to get this over with now cos when it is done it is all done and dusted, Rick

 

[lacroupade]

no mate he stood no chance, typical of getting it wrong, although the councils arguments are not correct either, but it matters little there was no way he was going to get that on the 4 year rule regarding existing buildings, you have to be fair, put up a farm building, call it existing and convert it, not really playing the game, on the other side of the coin had the enforcement officer here today re our letter about living in the converted stables, you should have seen his face when he walked in and saw our place, he was visibly shocked and the tone went off straight away to the point of giving suggestions how to avoid enforcement action by applying for a lawful development certificate now and he will send me the forms, in the end it is better to get this over with now cos when it is done it is all done and dusted, Rick

well you have to admit his was a pretty dodgy and devious effort, not quite playing cricket what? LOL