Living on own land

Davesnave

keith969 wrote: »

Funny that, that's exactly what's happened to a sheep field close to me where a developer is now building 61 houses. Developers can do what they like, it seems, while individuals cannot.

Err, the site that's been earmarked for the building of 34 homes in our village often has sheep in it.....What's your point?

The problem we have here is that, so far, no one seems keen to take on the development. Of course, they'll have to contribute to the upgrading of the sewerage system. Is that what you mean by "doing as they want?"

AdrianC

Davesnave wrote: »

Err, the site that's been earmarked for the building of 34 homes in our village often has sheep in it.....What's your point?

The problem we have here is that, so far, no one seems keen to take on the development. Of course, they'll have to contribute to the upgrading of the sewerage system. Is that what you mean by "doing as they want?"

Our own village is earmarked for about 20 new houses (close to a 20% increase in the current total) over the next decade or so. The NDP found around half that number from existing conversion-capable barns etc - they're all owned by "individuals"... No favouritism - afaia, all the plots submitted were accepted. Two plots have been earmarked for preference for the remainder.

It's very unlikely anybody will actually bother trying to buy that land, apply for permission, then build for sale - because the demand simply isn't there. But that option is there for EVERYBODY - "developer" or "individual".

keith969

AdrianC wrote: »

I bet that the developer went through the exact same planning permission process as anybody else would have to...
.

Oh of course they did. And the local council objected, based on the local infrastructure being at capacity and other issues like traffic, but it was overridden on appeal, as the developers had deep pockets to pay their lawyers.

moneyistooshorttomention

AdrianC wrote: »

I bet that the developer went through the exact same planning permission process as anybody else would have to...

Have a look on your local council's planning website - the entire history is available to view.

Well maybe not the entire history:rotfl:

The local grapevine or an objective local newspaper will tell you "unofficial" information that isn't down there in the Council minutes (which are prone to missing out stuff like "x is a friend of y" and "so and so got planning permission no-one else would have for that - because they're 'a local' ").

...and yes developers do have "deep pockets" sometimes and are impervious to the fact of the whole local community not wanting them/not having room for them/etc/etc and will just keep at it until they get what they want.

[Deleted User]

It can be done OP.

I bought my mobile home for £900 12 years ago and have lived in it ever since . It is sited on my own land and no longer looks like a mobile home inside or out.

The rub in my area is that I have full day living permission but this means I have to leave for one night a year. The other difference is that it cannot be my main residence so I had to own another property which I do.

I guess a rented property could be classed as your main residence but in 12 years of living here no one has ever checked . I pay my council taxes and have mains services so do not live off grid . I wanted to be with my
Horses and have had the advantage of cheap housing costs.

As an aside there are so many people with mobiles and living in out buildings I think the council would find if very expensive to go down the enforcement route with everyone.

AdrianC

BBH123 wrote: »

The rub in my area is that I have full day living permission but this means I have to leave for one night a year. The other difference is that it cannot be my main residence so I had to own another property which I do.

If you live there for 364 days of the year, then you'd be very hard pushed to argue the other property is your "main residence", if ever challenged.

You might as well just stay in a hotel or with a friend for that other night.

MaritzaProkop

Thanks for that info Arleen.

[Deleted User]

AdrianC wrote: »

If you live there for 364 days of the year, then you'd be very hard pushed to argue the other property is your "main residence", if ever challenged.

You might as well just stay in a hotel or with a friend for that other night.

It was the planning dept that told me that , he was outlining the constraints of day living approval . If they thought people should only stay away one night they should have said so ie you cannot be there more than 80 nights or whatever. I think it's just a token thing tbh. You could also argue that if I only have to be away one night it's full residential because you don't have to try hard to be away a night a year.

Annie35

hmm, if the op cant afford a house, he surely cant afford a house AND field just so he can live in his field!

how about a houseboat? you can continuously cruise for £500 a year, or if you want a fixed abode mooring is variable from about £50pm, you can get a cabin cruiser (like a touring caravan on water) for less then £5k

[Deleted User]

Land is expensive now, small plots in my area is about £50k an acre and that's when you can find it.

It's not a cheap option but it can be a cheaper option than buying a house.