Living on own land

POPPYOSCAR

oystercatcher wrote: »

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.

They set up an illegal site on greenbelt land.

And doing it yet again in Wickford nearby.

Davesnave

Owain_Moneysaver wrote: »

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.

I think being a farm worker is enough to qualify nowadays, if that's one's main occupation, but few farm workers are in a position to buy ag-tied property, as mortgages at normal rates aren't easily obtainable.

Ironically, most ag-tied property is now sold outright to people who have the cash, especially if the house is a concrete panel bungalow.

It's not easy to make a living from a small acreage these days, unless adding value to a crop, like Ben Laws does. Ag-ties are a bit of a planning white elephant, being based on a model of farming which is long-gone.

Davesnave

There's a bit of off grid stuff going on near me, this being the best known:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4267166/Couple-ALLERGIC-modern-life-evicted-mud-hut.html

It took 10 years for some people living on their own land near my village to be evicted by the local authority. When it became known how much it would cost to clear the site and store the caravans, cars and accumulated stuff etc, somehow it caught fire....two nights in a row!

Not all of these folk are harmless hippies, living with nature.

Glaedr

Thanks for all the replies. Apologies for vanishing for a bit there, I've had some technical issues.

Can't speak for anyone else, but the idea for me is more to avoid long term costs and thus be more secure rather than communing with nature, much as I like the latter.

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.

No confusion. Perhaps there's another term for that exact situation that I'm not yet aware of. Point is, they won't let you live there.

I totally understand that not all land can be built on, especially in the greenbelt etc. and that planning permission must be gained. My surprise/annoyance is that even in non-green areas, it seems near impossible to gain it. Seems a bit pointless allowing people to apply if it's always going to be a no.

Living in this way would mean that I and others could actually build up some savings and there would be considerably less chance of having to rely on the state for support later on. It's also potentially less social housing to find. In many areas it feels a little like those not born into rich families are being purposely blocked out of actually making something of themselves.

Thanks for all the information/links though, I'll give them all a read.

spadoosh

I think ive worked out a way around the planning rules. Although not actually willing to give it a go.

Ive followed a few of the stories of the loopholes, some work, some dont and inevitably you dont know until youre told it can stay or go.


Anyway back to my idea. Buy a plot of land. Parcel it in to 13 pieces and sell to companies youve set up. The companies then rent on a 28 day basis to you. As i understand the rules you can stay on a plot without planning for 28 days in a year. So move on to the next lot after 28 days and so on. You could try keeping it in on spot and as soon as youre asked to move on, move on. Then i think if you can get away with living on one plot for 10 years without complaint getting planning becomes more obtainable. I suppose you could use 12 friends but would have to hope they dont pull a fast one.

I think its genius.

spadoosh

Glaedr wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies. Apologies for vanishing for a bit there, I've had some technical issues.

Can't speak for anyone else, but the idea for me is more to avoid long term costs and thus be more secure rather than communing with nature, much as I like the latter.



No confusion. Perhaps there's another term for that exact situation that I'm not yet aware of. Point is, they won't let you live there.

I totally understand that not all land can be built on, especially in the greenbelt etc. and that planning permission must be gained. My surprise/annoyance is that even in non-green areas, it seems near impossible to gain it. Seems a bit pointless allowing people to apply if it's always going to be a no.

Living in this way would mean that I and others could actually build up some savings and there would be considerably less chance of having to rely on the state for support later on. It's also potentially less social housing to find. In many areas it feels a little like those not born into rich families are being purposely blocked out of actually making something of themselves.

Thanks for all the information/links though, I'll give them all a read.

I dont know how true that is. It seems to be one or the other. Those who succeed suggest it more or less can always be done, you just need to know the rules and regs and have a rock solid plan. Those who fail are normally clueless about the process and have screwed up somewhere along the line which makes it harder to ever get planning.

My understanding of planning is they have to find good enough reasons to refuse. As long as you look at your local councils development plans and codes and avoid any of the things that will likely see it refused you should be granted permission.

Wales have tried to implement more flexible development rules for rural land. Cant remmeber the projects name but if you plan on living 'the good life' and as long as you hit certain carbon neutral targets etc you can build without much in the way of planning. Although the bulk of the stories so far around it seem to be a bit wishy washy in its delivery, lots of confusion.

AdrianC

spadoosh wrote: »

Buy a plot of land. Parcel it in to 13 pieces

At which point, you own 13 plots of land. The original one plot no longer exists. You've just incurred fairly substantial legal fees.

and sell to companies youve set up.

At which point, you own no land.
Well, actually, you DO still own 13 plots, because you have 100% shareholding and control over those companies. You're incurring 13 x annual company costs, as well as tax on the rental income.

The companies then rent on a 28 day basis to you.

Related person transaction.

As i understand the rules you can stay on a plot without planning for 28 days in a year. So move on to the next lot after 28 days and so on. You could try keeping it in on spot and as soon as youre asked to move on, move on.

So you're dragging your caravan around the plot every four weeks. Even in the depths of winter, when the ground may well be waterlogged. What are you doing for water/power/drainage, btw?

Then i think if you can get away with living on one plot for 10 years without complaint getting planning becomes more obtainable.

Except you haven't, have you? You've not lived on any one plot for more than 28 days... Remember, that original plot is now 13 plots.

I think its genius.

I think I've seen sieves with fewer holes.

bertiewhite

Glaedr wrote: »

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.

I'm reminded of a situation where a Father had converted the garage at the end of his garden into a perfectly habitable dwelling for his daughter but the council had intervened, claiming that a garage didn't provided adequate living conditions (or something along those lines).

It does seem strange (or "nanny-state") that people cannot decide how and where they want to live on their own land, especially in an existing building.

Surely it's better than having people homeless, living in a box on the streets?

davidmcn

Glaedr wrote: »

I totally understand that not all land can be built on, especially in the greenbelt etc. and that planning permission must be gained. My surprise/annoyance is that even in non-green areas, it seems near impossible to gain it. Seems a bit pointless allowing people to apply if it's always going to be a no.

Living in this way would mean that I and others could actually build up some savings and there would be considerably less chance of having to rely on the state for support later on. It's also potentially less social housing to find. In many areas it feels a little like those not born into rich families are being purposely blocked out of actually making something of themselves.

Not sure if you're missing the point here, but the reason such land is reasonably-priced is because it's got little prospect of gaining planning consent for residential use. If it were easier to build on then you'd be competing against everyone else wanting to do the same thing, including the developers with much deeper pockets than yours.

sevenhills

I heard something on the radio today, about increased caravan sleeping, on peoples driveways.

"Record Footfall Numbers at the Caravan, Camping and Motorhome Show 2017"