Split garden & sell house?

bobwilson

I'm interested in splitting my garden into two separate parts, selling the house to a new owner & keeping the back part of the garden myself.

The house has a long garden and storage sheds at the back. It's on the corner with a road going alongside, so both the house & back of the garden each benefit from their own independent access.

Does anyone know if I need planning permission to split the garden into two separate owners & after the house is sold with its own garden if I need planning permission to continue using the storage sheds? Thanks

Davesnave

Our last house had long, wide garden, which we split in a similar way to keep stock and materials for our business while we searched for a new property from a rental.

The plot was divided when we sold and the part without a house was given its own title. We even arranged to retain a water supply (not metered) for a set period, but the purchasers' solicitors messed-up and we recieved it in perpetuity!

We kept the plot for around 4 years, after which we sold it to neighbours, sorting-out the water supply mistake at that time.

We didn't ask for planning permission, as the use remained the same as before the split, nor did the subsequent buyers, because the land's classification didn't alter: it was 'garden land.'

bobwilson

so by that token does that mean if you have a garden studio office for occasional use with en suite bathroom you could continue using it for that after selling the house, without planning permission?!

Davesnave

bobwilson wrote: »

so by that token does that mean if you have a garden studio office for occasional use with en suite bathroom you could continue using it for that after selling the house, without planning permission?!

No. A building used like that, divorced from the original house and with plumbing connected to the sewer, would become an independent occasional dwelling, not merely overspill accommodation. The use of the land would have changed. We never lived or camped on our retained plot or had mains drainage.


Without services, I'd expect you might camp there under the '28 day rule.'


Coincidentally, I visited an open garden only last weekend, where the owner was clearly using a posh garden room 200' from the house as his main living quarters, at least during the warmer months. It was still ancilliary accommodation though, not that I think he cared. Down here in holiday territory, it's not that unusual for a home owner to live in an outbuilding temporarily and rent out the house, air b&b style, to earn a crust.

bobwilson

what's the '28 day rule'?

Thanks for the reply - you seem to be the only person on MSE forum who knows anything about this basic topic!

Also, according to gov website you need a kitchen & bed to qualify as ancillary accommodation requiring change of use. A music room or office with en suite wouldn't require permission. I do appreciate your input though, even though it might not have been accurate on that point, it is appreciated! (unless I'm wrong and gov websites can't be trusted?)

Also, regarding your experience, it seems that given how difficult it is to get clear info on this topic and given that councils are so hard to get a clear answer out of, it isn't surprising there are people out there doing it without realising.

Davesnave

bobwilson wrote: »

what's the '28 day rule'?


Also, according to gov website you need a kitchen & bed to qualify as ancillary accommodation requiring change of use. A music room or office with en suite wouldn't require permission. I do appreciate your input though, even though it might not have been accurate on that point, it is appreciated! (unless I'm wrong and gov websites can't be trusted?)

The outbuilding can't be ancilliary at all if it has nothing to be ancilliary to, so the rules about ancilliary accommodation would be irrelevant.

You last spoke about selling off the house and its immediate garden and creating a "studio office" on the retained land. The use of the word studio confused me, because in modern property parlance a studio is an open-plan living unit, but now you are using it in the musical sense. i.e. a musical practice room and/or office.

An independent building like that, with drainage, might still change the land use from garden to commercial. As you can tell, I'm no expert, but it seems to me that this is more than a shed, and regardless of how often it's used, there would be potential for commercial activity .e.g music lessons, accountancy, whatever.

If there's an en-suite, there will be a water supply and that requires an address. Electricity would also need one. You can see where this is going; once you have an address you're into council tax territory.

Our retained garden had just a shed and a large greenhouse. No electricity or drainage was required and our water supply was only temporary, so the use of the land didn't change at all, but what you've proposed since your initial post is a different usage, not just storage.

The 28 day rule allows someone to camp on land they own for that number of days in a year, but I don't think that is appropriate now.

Doozergirl

If you are selling a house and maintaining a building separately then it will need a formal application for change of use and, if successful, be subject to council tax or business rates, depending on what the use was.

It goes without saying that it isn't an ancillary building if it has nothing to be ancillary to, so you're barking up the wrong tree there. There is information out there but you're not going to find it on what sounds like the householder's planning portal for permitted development because it doesn't come close to being permitted development because there would be no household for it to be subordinate to.

You're unlikely to get planning permission in a former back garden for something that doesn't reflect the pattern of the area. Councils aren't generally keen on subdivision for the sake of it.

hazyjo

I should imagine any buyer would be wary about that land being sold to a developer for a new house/flats (depending on size). What would be your first thought if you found a house you wanted to buy but the owner was retaining a section of the garden that had access from another road?

Davesnave

hazyjo wrote: »

I should imagine any buyer would be wary about that land being sold to a developer for a new house/flats (depending on size). What would be your first thought if you found a house you wanted to buy but the owner was retaining a section of the garden that had access from another road?

Depends on the access and individual quirks of the plot, I'd imagine.
In our case, there was no possible access, except on foot, so the possibility of development like that couldn't arise, though selling to people with adjoining very short gardens made it more feasible for them to extend. So far, none has though.

trickydicky802

bobwilson wrote: »

Does anyone know if I need planning permission to split the garden into two separate owners & after the house is sold with its own garden if I need planning permission to continue using the storage sheds? Thanks

I sold a bit of land to a neighbour wanting to enlarge his garden. Their solicitor handled the sale and conveyance, which resulted in slightly modified title deeds for both properties. The neighbour then put up a new fence along the line we agreed. There was no change of use, only a change of owner, so no planning permission required.

But we were only selling a bit of land and stayed in our house so I can't really answer your second question.