Living In A Shed - Is It Legal?

Davesnave

I don't recall mentioning Slough*, which has nothing to do with my post. I was just pointing out that the intense pressure on housing may lead to stuff like 'beds in sheds' in many locations, especially when those concerned aren't middle class or from this country originally.

We do have rather a lot of laws in the UK. Their purpose is the common good, but like all laws, they may appear to be for the benefit of other chap, especially when situations are tight.

Location may have a bearing on what people get away with, because it's only when enforcement happens that the laws are respected. Enforcement is poorer in some places.

I remember a Welsh farmer showing me the shed on his holding, where his brother-in-law lived for around 3 years. In my viewings I also remember a couple of 'storage' caravans, which obviously weren't, including one inside a pole barn, hidden from the air.

More recently, closer to home, I've been aware for a few years now that a small group of people are living in makeshift accommodation alongside the main road and the railway here in Devon; somewhere that's not exactly remote and hidden-away. Unlike the couple who went sobbing to the Daily Wail, because they'd been told to demolish their mud house a few miles further down the valley, this lot stay quiet, keep their heads down and no one seems to be bothered.

Mind you, we haven't had a bad winter since 2010/11. In 2009 it was -19c in that location!

To be clear, if the OP's report is anywhere near accurate, I'd report the neighbour. I don't condone flouting of the planning & building laws, but I can see why and how it happens.

*Ah, I see someone else did.

Placitasgirl

To be honest that same person could be "effing and blinding" on the phone in their garden and there'd be nothing you could do about it, except politely asking them to desist, so I really don't think that's at all relevant to your question/complaint.

Cakeguts

Report it to the council. It may not be fire proof and if there is a toilet everyone needs to know where that drains to.

Salemicus

The entire purpose of planning and building control is to provide us all with safe, clean places to live

Oh come on now, that may be the ostensible purpose, and it even works that way at times, but that's not the entire purpose. It's also a tool of political control, and a vehicle for incumbents and NIMBYs to squash land uses they don't like without having to pay for it. Just because people say "safe, clean places to live" doesn't make it so.

This example is a case in point. The OP is not motivated by concern of whether the people living in the shed have a safe, clean place to live. Certainly, his safety and cleanliness are not affected. This is a thinly disguised claim of nuisance - and a rotten one at that, as Placitasgirl points out above. So the planning laws ride to his rescue, and then people have the gall to claim it's a good outcome?

But no no, I'm quite sure it's for the benefit of the lodger in the shed. Did anyone remember to ask her whether she wants to be kicked out of her home?

glasgowdan

Placitasgirl wrote: »

To be honest that same person could be "effing and blinding" on the phone in their garden and there'd be nothing you could do about it, except politely asking them to desist, so I really don't think that's at all relevant to your question/complaint.

Of course it's relevant. They're unlikely to be spending hours in the garden watching tv subjecting neighbours to their ways.

AndyBSG

Thanks guys,

I have reported it to both the local planning department and council tax enforcement and the planning department have confirmed there has definitely been no building reg sign off and as we're in a parish council conservation area they will be taking action

Salemicus wrote: »

This example is a case in point. The OP is not motivated by concern of whether the people living in the shed have a safe, clean place to live. Certainly, his safety and cleanliness are not affected. This is a thinly disguised claim of nuisance

One point to make Salemicus, you are mistaken that this is a thinly disguised claim of nuisance... I'm not trying to disguise it in any way and will be quite open about the fact my main issue is the nuisance this is causing me.

I paid a lot of money for my property and am entitled to enjoy my garden with my two young children not have to lock them in doors because of someone living in the shed next door.

Planning laws are there stop this sort of unreasonable behaviour and I make no excuse for reporting them being broken and I take particular exception to the council tax implications because I don't see why I should end up seeing my tax bills rise to fund those who are dodging there's so feel free to step down off your high horse

Doozergirl

Salemicus wrote: »

Oh come on now, that may be the ostensible purpose, and it even works that way at times, but that's not the entire purpose. It's also a tool of political control, and a vehicle for incumbents and NIMBYs to squash land uses they don't like without having to pay for it. Just because people say "safe, clean places to live" doesn't make it so.

This example is a case in point. The OP is not motivated by concern of whether the people living in the shed have a safe, clean place to live. Certainly, his safety and cleanliness are not affected. This is a thinly disguised claim of nuisance - and a rotten one at that, as Placitasgirl points out above. So the planning laws ride to his rescue, and then people have the gall to claim it's a good outcome?

But no no, I'm quite sure it's for the benefit of the lodger in the shed. Did anyone remember to ask her whether she wants to be kicked out of her home?

You can take a cynical view of it if you like. It's two sides of exactly the same coin. Some people will use something to benefit themselves, others will use it to benefit others. Annoying as they are, there is a place for NIMBYs to stand against profiteering developers - the system does allow compromise and control. Ultimately, those doing the job of planning are motivated by the desire to create safe and good places to live.

With a best friend who has been a housing enforcement officer in Slough, her motivation is to make better places for people to live and to shut down unscrupulous landlords. It doesn't solve the housing crisis, but slumlords certainly don't solve it.

This person should not be living in a run down shed. As it stands, it isn't good for them and it isn't good for their neighbours either. If the structure is made safe and secure then the neighbour will have to adapt to living with their new neighbour, but at least that person isn't living in slum conditions anymore. I suspect the sound problem will be reduced with decent insulation anyway.

ProDave

Doozergirl wrote: »

Any living accommodation requires full building regulations approval, so any recent conversion to accommodation will of course need good insulation and to be of sound structure. There's actually nothing to stop it being a single skin of brick thick.
.

Not strictly true.
A "caravan" does not need building regs approval. And to legally qualify as a "caravan" it does NOT have to be on wheels. Any building that can be transported in sections and is within certain size limits can be defined as a "caravan". There was one on Grand Designs, a 100 square metre bungalow that was built on a site with planning permission for a "caravan" and was exempt from building regs as it was built to still fit the legal description of being transportable.

Salemicus

Doozergirl - does the OP openly admitting that this is merely a nuisance claim dressed up as a planning breach in any way shake your faith? I don't suppose so; the great thing about faith is it doesn't depend on evidence.

AndyBSG - You are hilarious. By your own admission, the nuisance here is the noise. Your neighbours using their shed as a dwelling is not in itself a nuisance to you. If the neighbours dwelt quietly in the shed, there'd be no nuisance. If they made lots of noise in the garden without living in it, you'd be just as nuisanced.

You are wrong that the purpose of planning law is to prevent you being nuisanced. That is the purpose of nuisance law, but this is a whole different complicated topic on which I do not have the time to educate you. Suffice to say that if the council decide they're not interested in enforcement, you're SOL with your planning and building regs complaints.

What you should be doing here is discuss the situation with your neighbours, and ask them to keep the noise down. If they do that, your problem is solved - and you'll note nothing about planning or building regs changed one iota. If that doesn't work, make a noise complaint, and pursue and defend your own legal rights. You are absolutely entitled to quiet enjoyment of your garden, and I support you in that. What you are not entitled to do is use planning law as a crude cudgel to smash over your neighbours' heads.

I find it particularly amusing that you rant about the utterly trivial council tax implications here, and the terror - terror! - of having to lock up your children for fear of them hearing a loud phone conversation, then accuse me of being on a high horse. Get over yourself. But just remember this - when you come to sell, you'll have to declare any disputes with the neighbours. I do so hope your abuse of our planning system doesn't come back to bite you.

AndyBSG

Salemicus wrote: »

I do so hope your abuse of our planning system doesn't come back to bite you.

I'm pretty sure it's the person living in the shed who is abusing the planning system, not me.