Permitted Development

[DAREDEVIL]

Originally Posted by hunton69

We now have the history and land registry info required

The property was sold in 1931 and the land in question measured 560 foot from the left boundary to the right boundary. It is 300 foot from the road to the rear boundary on the left of the property and 365 feet to the right of the property.

Parents then daughter and then here husband lived in the property untill it was sold in 2002. We bought 2010
The plot of land has remained the same through out that period.

As said before over the years various lines have appeared on the ordance survey maps not sure why.

I followed this thread and by the sounds of it ..you got it figured out ....so let me say congrats always good when something like this works !

[hunton69]

Originally Posted by DAREDEVIL

I followed this thread and by the sounds of it ..you got it figured out ....so let me say congrats always good when something like this works !

I wish it was that simple. The council still say the buildings are outside of the curtilage and therefor illegal.

[Jon Holmes]

Barry,

Are all the buildings inside the boundary that is shown on the Land Registry Title Deed?

[Jon Holmes]

Originally Posted by hunton69

I wish it was that simple. The council still say the buildings are outside of the curtilage and therefor illegal.

Recently, the Local Authorities have added a service on their web sites were you can put in your postcode, select your address and it shows a map of your property and its boundary. However, it appears that someone has given some civil servants a box of crayons and allowed them to re draw the boundaries!

I have come across this on several occasions and the Planning Officers are convinced that these (new) boundaries are what matters when determining curtilage. I have argued this with them stating that as far as i am concerned the curtilage is what is shown on the Title Deed to which i have then been told that if would like them to alter their drawings that i should write to the Authority explaining the differences and supply the necessary evidence to prove the case!

[Jon Holmes]

Originally Posted by Tony Davis

his has been sent to me by someone who i suspect wishes to remain anonymous for some reason.....

Tell the ****er he only has to show the cutilage in use for the past 10 years, as that is all it takes. If you use land as if it were your curtilage, ie the garden of the house, for 10 years, and the council did not object in those 10 years, then that is the defined curtilage.... 1947 does not matter."

This message has been sent to all moderators of this forum, or all administrators if there are no moderators.

Please respond to this post as applicable.
"

Has this anonymous person actually succeeded in doing this Tony?

Only I am currently in the process of doing exactly this with a piece of land and have 4 years left to go. I imagine however that it will not be as simple as it sounds. I have read of cases where small adjoining plots have been absorbed into the curtilage over a very long period of time and within the same family ownership, however these plots tend to be situated in isolated areas away from the prying eyes of the local Authority and busy body neighbours.

I would be very interested in talking to anyone who has successfully done this.

[hunton69]

Originally Posted by Jon Holmes

Barry,

Are all the buildings inside the boundary that is shown on the Land Registry Title Deed?

We have old deeds and i have now ordered on line the recent electronic ones.

If you look at various properties that have had investigations and planning approval the red lines vary considerable. A mate of mines who lives 1 mile away has his whole 3 acre boundary covered by the red sheded area others have small plots.

If the red line determines the curtilage then there would not be any disputes so im sure thats not correct

[DAREDEVIL]

Originally Posted by hunton69

I wish it was that simple. The council still say the buildings are outside of the curtilage and therefor illegal.

sounds like the council needs money , thats all !

i say fight it because if it was there since then untill 2010, it should of been fought by them before your era !?

[hunton69]

A result at last.

In August 2011 the Inspector ruled that our curtilage was very similar ( not exact as the grid lines) to the inner rectangle in the picture on post 39 of this thread.
Thereore all the buildings were built outside of the curtilage and had to be demolished.
We then applied for a certificate of lawfullness to rebuild the swimming pool, Gym, Games Room, Snooker Room and Bar in a L shape just inside our now defined curtilage.
This was rejected by the council as they said individularly they were ok but collectively they were to big to be defined as PD. (the new build would be 340 Sq Meters)
As the new build complied to all regulations under class E the sticking point was "Where they incidental to the dwelling house"
The good news is that we have won the appeal.
So after 2 years of costs to both sides we can now have a development that is larger than what we would of settled for had we negotiated.
The orginal pool building was 180 Sq meters and a games/bar that we wanted would have been approx 80 sq meters.
Had the council sat down with us when we first bought the property we could of avoided all this mess.
However the last laugh is on us as we no longer want the old pool as it ain't big enough to swim in and the new one will be much closer to the original house and on the same level plus much larger.

At the begining of this thread I failed to mention that the property was subject to 2 enforcement cases regarding these buildings in 2007/8 we puchases in 2010 yet the council closed both cases with no action being taken against the previous owners who constructed the buildings.
There reasons were that the original enforcement officers never looked at curtilage or whether they were incidental (670 sq meters of buildings) but did check for heights and sitings.
They got that wrong as the pool is 4 meters and 30 center meters high max permissible 4 meters
Also 3 of the buildings were closer than the 2 meters required from the original curtilage boundary that the previous owner were working to.

So to summaries the whole case stinks

[Jon Holmes]

Good news Barry.

Got to love the Local Authorities!