Living on own land

Glaedr

I've recently discovered what seems to be a bit of a growing trend in the conversion of sheds, summerhouses, containers, vans, buses etc. into tiny houses. It seems to be cheaper than buying or building a house, even if you include a small patch of land on which to park/place it. With so many people, myself included, facing the prospect of never being able to purchase an actual house, the idea appeals. I don't need a great deal of space anyway.

But from what I've been reading today, it seems somehow to be near impossible to get planning permission, and without it you can officially only live on your land for a maximum of 28 days in the year. If I understand correctly, it's illegal to live on your own land if/when permission is declined, but technically not before? Some have opted for not applying, in the hope that some kind of time limit will have expired by the time they are discovered by anybody official. But unless you're living in the middle of nowhere, somebody is bound to notice and to make some kind of complaint, and it seems like a single complaint near-always results in an eviction notice from your own paid for land, which seems slightly ridiculous. I understand for greenbelt land etc. but it seems to apply to all land.

Something was vaguely mentioned in a post I saw elsewhere about it being easier to gain permission for a joint living/work space, and as I'm attempting to break into professional writing, I wondered if this might open up some options, or whether it only applied to people who have to work on that land specifically.

I'm struggling to find anything beyond personal opinions on the subject, and wondered if perhaps anybody here knew anything about this kind of thing. Are there any kind of loopholes that would make living in this way possible?

Thanks in advance.

Winter_Phoenix

A woman called Caroline Barry managed to get 'temporary' planning permission for a 'removable' dwelling (e.g. a caravan), and then managed to create a straw bale house on non-permanent foundations within the planning regulations. It's a bit of a convoluted story - she had to build it three times to get it right with her District Council - but apparently she's been living in it since the turn of the century.

The Telegraph did quite a good article on it some years back:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/new-homes/3320768/The-house-thats-built-of-straw-and-made-to-last.html
and Caroline's own website is at:
http://carolinebarry.org.uk/strawbale-house.php

Don't know whether that helps at all?

Arleen

My personal opinion would be to rent something instead if you cannot afford to buy. You will likely have better living standard and no possible demolition looming over your head (https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200187/your_responsibilities/37/planning_permission/5).

Norman_Castle

Glaedr wrote: »

Something was vaguely mentioned in a post I saw elsewhere about it being easier to gain permission for a joint living/work space, and as I'm attempting to break into professional writing, I wondered if this might open up some options, or whether it only applied to people who have to work on that land specifically.

Highly unlikely being a writer working from home would make any difference to planning permission.

As disappointing as it is not being able to build a home in a big green space that you own if you are allowed to then so should others which leaves very little land undeveloped.

Apodemus

For various (mainly good) reasons there are planning and building regulations to ensure that properties for permanent occupation meet certain minimum standards and tiny houses might struggle to meet some of these.

However, I think you are slightly confused about the consequences. YOU would not be evicted from your land. The building might be unauthorised and may need to be removed. You may be told that you cannot live in it. But it is the building that is under regulation, not you.

G_M

G_M

Owain_Moneysaver

It can be a complicated issue, but the ones on TV that appear to be successful are:

a) movable or relocatable structures such as vehicles, trailers, caravans (including 'lodges' built to caravan standards on a wheeled or relocatable chassis), and not buildings

b) occupied by family members as an adjunct to the main house, and not as a separate independent dwelling

Joint living/working space will often have an element of defined commercial use, providing employment or services to the locality (or encouraging tourism etc). Agricultural ties are available to people who have to live on the land to work it as, usually to care for animals (although Ben Laws on Grand Designs got his because he has to watch charcoal burners). Simply being a farm worker may not be sufficient to qualify.

karcher

G_M wrote: »

Surely the NIMBY'S would complain

On a serious note though, if you have the money or the influence, buying and developing land belonging to wealthy landowners is possible...you just need to have a 'face' that fits: the land owner will make sure it's all ok with the local town council;)

*sighs*

oystercatcher

Remember all the news about the travellers site near Basildon a couple of years ago? I think they just wanted to live on their own land.

Arleen

Is no one going to bring up Drzymała's wagon?