Anyone had a Section 52 on their property?

ellectrastar

So, I am still trying to pursue the purchase of a property with land. There have been a few hurdles to get over involving rights of way and access but just when it felt like I was getting somewhere something else has come up



In brief, I was told the place I am looking at was built in the 70s to replace the existing residence that had fallen into disrepair. The planning docs themselves are confusing as there appears to be permissions granted in 70s, but then more documents in the mid-80s. I'm not sure how I would find out when it was actually done?



Anyway, it's turned up in the local searches that the property is subject to a "Section 52". From what I can understand it appears to say that planning would not usually have been granted for the replacement residence, and therefore the owner at the time revoked the right to use the original building as a residence.



The issue I have is this. The current owners have actually converted the original building (which was being used as a garage) into a granny annexe for relatives. The relatives are no longer there and the owners no longer use it, except for when they have people to stay. They did not obtain any planning permission and referred to it as a "home office". I have no plans to live in it, but thought maybe in the future I could have the pp issue rectified (along with a vague notion of making it a holiday let). For the time being I planned to use it for storage and as a separate place for people to stay when they visited. The Section 52 has now made me doubt everything.



I've read some conflicting information online regarding permitted development. One source states that if a detached outbuilding is used for normal residential activities associated with the main house, such as a home office or studio, it doesn't need planning permission (although not as a self-contained annexe). Another states that you can have it as self-contained accomodation but only for use by members, dependents, or guests of the main residence, and that it cannot be let out or sold separately. It does appear to comply with the dimensions specified on all sites and it was done over four years ago.



So with all that, what I am trying to ascertain is, if I leave it as it is and just use it for storage and somewhere for guests to stay, is it likely to be a problem? A "residence" to me means a permanent place that someone lives in, so I don't think I'd be breaching the Section 52...?


If anyone can enlighten me I'd be interested to hear. Also on the subject of additional space for guests/dependents to stay; at this property there was also an enforcement for the siting of a caravan. This was complied with but subsequently another caravan has been put there without permission. What is the general rule with this? In the correspondence it seems the council says that it's been sited outside the curtilage of the property itself (in an adjacent field) so wouldn't be classed as ancillary to the residence and pp would not likely be granted. But if it's only to be used by the property owners or their visitors what issue is there? It's not a permanent residence or let?


Again, thanks in advance for any views offered and sorry for the long post...

eddddy

As I understand it, a section 52 notice is essentially a covenant.

So it would not be overridden by 'permitted development' rules, and the '4 year planning rule' isn't relevant either.

One option is to 'quietly' use it for guests - the council probably won't find out, unless somebody complains. (e.g. a busy-body neighbour, or a neighbour that you annoy in some way.)

You could enquire from the council about getting the covenant discharged, but that would alert them to your plans - so they might keep a closer eye on the property.

Davesnave

I think you could probably use the annexe in the same manner as the current owners without interference from the council, but I'd doubt you could get it regularised as a holiday let, or that you'd even want to when the other possible implications of that are examined. (insurance, council tax, fire regulations etc etc.)


As for caravans in fields, councils don't like them any more than they like people putting up permanent field shelters etc without permission, though what you can get away with will be down to your specific location. Where I am, I can get away with most things!

ellectrastar

The area is pretty remote and no near neighbours, although what neighbours there are could have sight of it if they got their binos out.



If the covenant states that it should not be used as a residence then I understand that and the reasons to preserve the area, but having it as an annexe for use by the occupants of the main property is surely different? It's not been created to let or sell off, and no one will be living in it permanently.



The surveyor suggested a tentative approach to the council to test the waters of what would or wouldn't be allowed, but obviously this was before we found out about the Section 52. I just don't want to be risk being told to tear the whole thing down...

ellectrastar

Davesnave wrote: »

...but I'd doubt you could get it regularised as a holiday let, or that you'd even want to when the other possible implications of that are examined. (insurance, council tax, fire regulations etc etc.)

Yes, I think the holiday let idea is pretty much out of the window. I had all these plans to get a property with a holiday let or two onsite (eventually) and thought it would be easy! I didn't realise how hard moving to a smallholding could be. If it materialises I think the holiday let will end up being a separate place completely.

eddddy

ellectrastar wrote: »

The surveyor suggested a tentative approach to the council to test the waters of what would or wouldn't be allowed, but obviously this was before we found out about the Section 52. I just don't want to be risk being told to tear the whole thing down...

OK - so did the Section 52 notice require the building to be demolished?

Or did it say that the building could remain...

ellectrastar wrote: »

...and therefore the owner at the time revoked the right to use the original building as a residence.

... but not be used as a dwelling?

If so, does it allow the building to be used as ancillary to the new main dwelling, or for some other purpose?

ellectrastar

eddddy wrote: »

OK - so did the Section 52 notice require the building to be demolished?

Or did it say that the building could remain...



... but not be used as a dwelling?

If so, does it allow the building to be used as ancillary to the new main dwelling, or for some other purpose?

Sorry - I didn't mean tear it down in the literal sense. I should have thought about how that read first of all!


I have the agreement here. Again it seems to talk as if the new property hasn't been built, despite there being approvals from the 70s. (There are four schedules referred to, the first describes the property, the second is the removal of a condition of the existing planning approval dated in the 70s - so would this suggest it wasn't built until the 80s, after this agreement?)



Sorry, I've digressed...



So the document says the council approves the development and that it must strictly conform with the agreement and that the owner (including successors) has convenanted that the property will be permanently subject to the restrictions. There are two listed - one is in relation to how the property should look/be constructed, the other states that the owner has revoked any claim to the use of the former house as a residence.



So it doesn't say it can't be used for anything at all, just not as a residence. I imagined it to be in case they then tried to develop the old place again and sell it off separately.


Current owners advise it became dangerous and was partly demolished, then had replacement walls and was used as a garage/workshop with kitchenette, then used as office/storage, then eventually made into an annexe for the relatives.