Concealing a Bungalow...

LittleMax

When will people learn? You can't hide a house and then get retrospective planning...

http://www.rugbyadvertiser.co.uk/news/long-itchington-couple-ordered-to-demolish-home-disguised-as-garage-1-8156294

ProDave

I don't understand some people. If they bought a house only fit for demolition, then they almost certainly would have got planning permission to demolish the old house and build a new one in it's place under the replacement swellings policy. So why try and build a house in the garage? what happened to the old unfit house?

AndyTails

This sounds to me to be significantly different to Fidler's Folly, in that Fidler hid it in straw bales which he then removed, whereas this couple may have just wanted their property officially declared ok, without changing its appearance at all.

Cakeguts

It is bonkers. Not only could they have replaced the original house probably but they build a house that looks like a garage???

EachPenny

Cakeguts wrote: »

It is bonkers. Not only could they have replaced the original house probably but they build a house that looks like a garage???

Looks like there is more to the story....

If I've found the right location there was an application in 2006 for "Construction of block built garage to replace tin built garage". It appears from Streetview and the planning applications that the building involved in the current case was previously the "tin built garage" rather than a former house.

There appears to be a 1999 application for a barn conversion into a holiday home and a subsequent appealed application (failed) to make the holiday home into a permanent residence. Although there is a lengthy list of applications for the site :think: I couldn't find one relating to an old house only fit for demolition.

I could be wrong, but it sounds like a bit of agricultural land with some outbuildings, one of which became a holiday home. And when the holiday home couldn't be used as a permanent residence the next best thing was to quietly convert another outbuilding into a permanent residence through the 'lawful development' route. The next step perhaps would have been to argue that as the site was now used for permanent residence the original 'barn conversion' should also have the 'holiday home' restriction lifted. An interesting strategy, but doomed to fail if the planning history is anything to go by.

LittleMax

Yes - that is the right one. The delegated report explains all...

https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/eplanning/AppDetail.aspx?appkey=OIA6UKPM0HQ00

Select 'Associated Documents' and then 'Reports'

Cakeguts

They won't get planning permission for there. You can see where the urban development line stops by the end of the bungalows further down the road. I assume that they tried to get to live there because it was cheap land without the permanent residency permit?