PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Buying a derelict property blog

13»

Comments

  • Re: Planning Permission I understand what you say about the properties being abandoned and I dont think there is any doubt about that and yes both properties would be in the green belt. That said, what would be more desirable 2 properties that are an eye sore, one of which has been vandalised? However I know the law is an !!! some times!
    I see your point, but it won't hold any water unfortunately if the previous residential use of the site(s) really has been 'abandoned' - an application to rebuild a house will be regarded exactly the same as an isolated new house in the countryside and unlikely to be permitted - especially, like Doozergirl says, if you're in Green Belt.
    The plans also stated a building condition that they may not start building until materials have been approved by the council and are in the same form and texture as the existing building that is brick and concrete tiles. Anyway the applicants ignored this and started anyway building a covered way out of grey metal posts and glazed the top of it. I asked the council where else on the property does these structures already exist to meet the condition and there response was that its not relevant as no covered way exists elsewhere around the property. So I said to them that the condition they have applied is effectively pointless if it has no basis.
    Quite agree with you there - by constructing a glazed covered way they clearly have not complied with the Condition, irrespective of what the Council say (and the justification given by the Council is complete nonsense!). Nevertheless, if it's causing no harm, the Council wouldn't have taken any enforcement action over the breach - but that does not excuse their feeble explanation of the Condition! Really they should not have attached the Condition in the first place - my guess is that it was a lazy Officer attaching it to the permission , without looking properly at the plans and realising that the materials could not possibly match for the covered way.
  • Bump. Any news/updates?
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.8K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.1K Life & Family
  • 257.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.