The "have a look at this!" thread II

cloo

Davesnave wrote: »

https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/48047093?search_identifier=53f9947526dfccee68344a0 8386c2284


Hmmmmm....more than 50% of the original garden now covered with habitable structures/ outbuildings.

Should be an easy sale then.

Habitable structures without planning permission as well apparently!:eek:

TamsinC

Smodlet wrote: »

Pic 7: Does anyone think this should be reported to the RSPCA? That horse appears to have very little room to move around and nothing to eat.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-55178082.html?utm_content=v2-ealertspropertyimage&utm_medium=email&utm_source=emailupdates&utm_campaign=emailupdates1day&utm_term=buying&sc_id=14058520&onetime_FromEmail=true

Looks like a schooling ring - for lunging etc - it does have water buckets in there, possible one has oats in - but it wouldn't live in there - the lack of poop seems to indicate it hasn't been in there long - The field behind seems to be it's 'home'.

Cressie

It's on the stag's head in pic 14. Missing from 24 I think.

Davesnave

cloo wrote: »

Habitable structures without planning permission as well apparently!:eek:

Yes, but that could in theory be granted retrospectively, say if the kitchen and/or bathroom were removed, or (unlikely) the 'annexe' was given independent status and council tax.


But building on more than 50% of the original area, even if they're sheds, cannot be approved, and that house has a massive ground floor extension, besides the annexe.

NaughtiusMaximus

Davesnave wrote: »

But building on more than 50% of the original area, even if they're sheds, cannot be approved,

I wasn't aware of that, I thought the 50% rule only applied to permanent structures.

cloo

Davesnave wrote: »

Yes, but that could in theory be granted retrospectively, say if the kitchen and/or bathroom were removed, or (unlikely) the 'annexe' was given independent status and council tax.


But building on more than 50% of the original area, even if they're sheds, cannot be approved, and that house has a massive ground floor extension, besides the annexe.

I did wonder, but one way or another that's going to be problematic.

Davesnave

NaughtiusMaximus wrote: »

I wasn't aware of that, I thought the 50% rule only applied to permanent structures.

Fromthe Planning Portal.

Outbuildings are considered to be permitted development, not needing planning permission, subject to the following limits and conditions:
No more than half the area of land around the "original house"* would be covered by additions or other buildings.



So this would not totally rule out retrospective permission, but it would make it extremely unlikely, especially as the sheds in this case are brick built, presumably with foundations.

LisbonLaura

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-65725069.html

A brave attempt to inwardly extend some of the bin colour-coding.

TamsinC

LisbonLaura wrote: »

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-65725069.html

A brave attempt to inwardly extend some of the bin colour-coding.

those bins are breeding :eek:

Smodlet

LisbonLaura wrote: »

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-65725069.html

A brave attempt to inwardly extend some of the bin colour-coding.

Is that a wire or a huge crack coming from the upstairs window in pic 2?