Council Planning Department Tolerance .. Does this exist?

jaqui59

harrys_dad wrote: »

Well you said the land is likely to be yours in four weeks. What can they do between now and then? How can they make you remove it?

Ok, thankyou ... There is obviously a process the Planning Department have to go through that takes longer than the 4 weeks that I didn't know about.

jaqui59

martindow wrote: »

Isn't the issue that the shed is not within the curtilage of the house? The planner seems to be suggesting that would not be a problem if you were building it nearer to your house. Permitted development probably does not apply outside the curtilage and I don't think the ownership of the land is the problem.

Ok, im going to try and put more detail into this to give a clearer picture.

Yes, the problem is that the shed is being built outside the curtilage of the house, and also that the the piece of land being transferred to me is in woodland (no trees had to be taken down).

The Planning Officer said that as our garden runs directly into this woodland it appears by all accounts as though it belongs to us, and has mentioned that if we can prove "beyond all probability" it is a garden then there shouldn't be a problem.

I think what i'm finding difficult to understand, is that once this piece of land is mine, why cant that be seen as my new curtilage and the building then be deemed as permitted development.

Apologies for my contribution to this thread being a bit confusing, its difficult for me to try and paint the picture, but all your answers are really helping me to see the problem.

Waterlily24

Not sure if this will be of any help or not but we didn't need planning permission for a quadruple garage (just needed building regs) with a pitched tiled roof if the height of the roof was below a certain height. Sorry cant remember the height but if you want to know I'll ask hubby if he can remember. I might add that two lots of plans went through planning where the height of the roof was too high (we didn't know the rule about them being lower nor did the architect lol) and were not passed. They didn't tell us about the height of the roof until we had a meeting with the planners to discuss it. It actually felt like they were trying to keep it a secret.

Hope that makes sense lol.

anselld

jaqui59 wrote: »

The Planning Officer said that as our garden runs directly into this woodland it appears by all accounts as though it belongs to us, and has mentioned that if we can prove "beyond all probability" it is a garden then there shouldn't be a problem.

So the real problem is Woodland is woodland and Garden is garden. Changing from woodland to garden would be a change of use.
Owning a bit of woodland adjacent to your garden does not automatically give you the right to use it as garden.

jaqui59

anselld wrote: »

So the real problem is Woodland is woodland and Garden is garden. Changing from woodland to garden would be a change of use.
Owning a bit of woodland adjacent to your garden does not automatically give you the right to use it as garden.

Thankyou anselld, "Change of Use" was the term I was looking for.