property/planning/letting a room advice

Somerset

Has anyone ever come across this situation ?

We've got a large garden. At the bottom is a building - half is used as a garage and the other half is a office/study ( divided by breezeblock ). So the office part which is approx 6m by 6m, we don't use much. It's already got lighting, heating, loo facilities & kitchenette.

The building was put up under 'permitted development' rights ie it's use is ancilliary to the main house so it can't be a self-contained annex ( we originally applied for a granny annex but were turned down )

You know this thing about letting out a room in your own home where I think you can get up to £300 p.m. tax free ? Do you think we would be breaching our planning rules if we were to use the office bit in this context ? It's sort of a room in our house since it's ancilliary use to our house. The council planner at the time said we could use it for guests ie anything you'd normally use your house for, you could use this for. And the 'let a room' thing is ok if it's in your house ?

I just don't know if it's feasible, legal-wise. I'm not going to ask the council planners as it took 18 months last time to get the 'permitted development' agreed on paper by them. It was a nightmare getting any kind of communication out of them (under-staffed, under-paid apparently)

Anyway just wondered if anyone had ever come across this before, either themselves or friends.

seven-day-weekend

Having worked in Planning for eight years, I would say it's possible that this use would also be Permitted , as it would just be another bedroom.

However, as the annexe has its own facilities, it could also be classed as a separate dwelling, and this would not be PD.

Planning Law is very open to ifs, ands, buts and interpretations. I'm afraid you are going to have to consult the planners to be on the safe side. They should have some sort of charter to answer your letter within a given time.

If they say it's a separate dwelling, ask what would be the case if you took the kitchen facilities out, so that whoever lived there had to use the main house for cooking/eating. It would then imho almost certainly just be classed as an ensuite bedroom and would not need planning permission.

silvercar

presumably you want to let it out as an office rather than a bedroom? I don't know whether the rent a room scheme covers this or not. If it does why would you need planning permission, you already have been told it is a permitted development.

Somerset

seven day weekend

thanks for the info. I understand what you are saying. As a planning officer, have you heard of this being done before (with the kitchen which is basic) and what was the outcome, ok or not. I take on board the fallback position of taking the kitchen out.

Thanks

seven-day-weekend

silvercar wrote:

If it does why would you need planning permission, you already have been told it is a permitted development.

That is for the building, not the use.

seven-day-weekend

Somerset wrote:

seven day weekend

thanks for the info. I understand what you are saying. As a planning officer, have you heard of this being done before (with the kitchen which is basic) and what was the outcome, ok or not. I take on board the fallback position of taking the kitchen out.

Thanks

First of all I have to say that although I do have professional qualifications in Town Planning, I was not a Planning Officer, I was a Planning Technician, and then Enforcement Technician.

I have heard of this being done before, and although it's not terribly helpful I have to say that each case is taken very much on its own merits, at least in my Authority. Some are acceptable and some are not. It very much depends upon the way the legislation is interpreted and the nature of the residential use. My own colleague (Enforcement Officer) would have visited the site before making his decision.

I really think you need to get a definite answer from the planning department.

Some people would just do it and if no-one complains there is no problem.

bobalicious

Somerset wrote:

We've got a large garden. At the bottom is a building - half is used as a garage and the other half is a office/study ( divided by breezeblock ). So the office part which is approx 6m by 6m, we don't use much. It's already got lighting, heating, loo facilities & kitchenette.

Do you think we would be breaching our planning rules if we were to use the office bit in this context ? It's sort of a room in our house since it's ancilliary use to our house. The council planner at the time said we could use it for guests ie anything you'd normally use your house for, you could use this for. And the 'let a room' thing is ok if it's in your house ?

You would not require planning permission to use as ancillary to your house unless you had an unusual condition within an existing permission or you permitted development rights had been withdrawn by virtue of an article 4 direction.

Somerset wrote:

I just don't know if it's feasible, legal-wise. I'm not going to ask the council planners as it took 18 months last time to get the 'permitted development' agreed on paper by them. It was a nightmare getting any kind of communication out of them (under-staffed, under-paid apparently)

You did not even *need* to do this, by which I presume you applied for a certificate of lawful existing (or proposed) use of development? All (and it is all) that that does is state that the Council agre that you are within your rights to do something. It does not affect the rights themselves.

Asking the planners would only highlight the non-issue, so do not bother, but do got professional advice if you are unsure of the legality of anything.

Also, even if you were to use a building for residential purposes unlawfully, it becomes lawful after four years.

bobalicious

seven-day-weekend wrote:

That is for the building, not the use.

No, the two are intertwined within the permitted development rights. In the absence of conditions to the contrary, or the removal of PD rights, a built structure that is ancillary to the dwellinghouse can be used for whatever, so long as that use is ancillary to the main use as a dwellinghouse.

seven-day-weekend

bobalicious wrote:

You

Also, even if you were to use a building for residential purposes unlawfully, it becomes lawful after four years.

It's ten years if we are talking about its use - four years is for an unlawful building to become exempt from enforcement action.

seven-day-weekend

bobalicious wrote:

No, the two are intertwined within the permitted development rights. In the absence of conditions to the contrary, or the removal of PD rights, a built structure that is ancillary to the dwellinghouse can be used for whatever, so long as that use is ancillary to the main use as a dwellinghouse.

I agree, but I'm not sure this is the case in the OP's situation.

bobalicious

seven-day-weekend wrote:

However, as the annexe has its own facilities, it could also be classed as a separate dwelling, and this would not be PD.

That, in itself, does not affect the PD rights as set out in the GPDO. Unless it was entirely self-sustained, and able to exist in the absence of the primary function (the house), then no sub-division or functional separation of the planning unit has occurred.

As the original poster does not state that the annexe has a bathroom (as opposed to just a toilet), it does not sound as though it is capable of use in isolation, therefore there is no functional or physical separation from the sounds of it.

The fact that an application for a granny annexe was refused from the sounds of it, may mean there are some curtain twitchers locally who'll be keeping an eye on things though.