Removing holiday let planning permission

Davesnave

Madmel said:

This is really to @Davesnave so sorry for derailing slightly OP.
  Should the owners have planning permission from the county/district as the only applications they have made have been for listed building alterations or putting up a satellite dish?

I doubt if they'd need permission to let it out,  if they're using the house as a second home and the planning was based on it having residential status, either full or part year.  

Planning usually works to ensure that new/converted property in the countryside which might not otherwise be allowed, is used to benefit the community, either through adding to the holiday accommodation stock, or  by providing a home for rural workers / low paid locals. It's usually one or the other though, not both.

Barn conversions are also a special area governed by the planning rules in what's called Class Q, which have been relaxed somewhat in the past year or two.

Dillon141

Davesnave said:

Dillon141 said:

davidmcn said:

Dillon141 said:

davidmcn said:

Dillon141 said:

Ah well, I can ask the question of the council I guess, then I’ll have my answer and move on! 

Why would you be asking anyway? Surely it's up to the vendor (if they want to sell to you) to do the donkeywork.

Currently it is a holiday let and that is what the current owner obviously accepted as PP on the outbuildings. They also are moving from the area so really I was asking with the view of whether or not if someone who has been local all his life would be able to get rid of the PP clause for it to be a holiday let and actually be a dwelling seeing as there are shortages in the supply of local housing. 

The sale price now would obviously be lower than if it was a dwelling. 

What I mean is maybe the council would rather, or be more willing to change it if it was purchased by someone local to change the use so it could be a dwelling....

No, planning decisions aren't "personal" in that way. If there were now objective planning reasons for why the holiday restriction was no longer required, and it could then be removed, then the vendor could sell to anyone (at a full market price).

You do sometimes get housing restricted to "locals" or key workers, but that still has problems about restricting the marketability as you'd expect to have the same restrictions when you sell, and mortgage lenders would have similar concerns about how easily they could get rid of it.

Of course.

The situation that I would obviously find perfect is if I enquired with the council and they said that I could remove the condition, or at least that they would be open to it in a couple of years, and that I purchase the holiday let at a price which reflected the current restrictions on it and after becoming the owner could then remove the condition.

We'd all like to buy a property with a depressed price because of a legal restriction and later profit from its removal, all thanks to the collusion of the local council. I believe that might be viewed as fraud.

The normal situation is that one may buy a restricted property, often with cash because of weak mortgageability, and then not comply with the restriction in the hopethe breach will not be noticed or the legal situation enforced. Then, after the appropriate period of non-compliance has elapsed, usually ten years, it is normally  possible to obtain a Certificate of Lawful Development, removing the need to comply with the restriction.

The above is the route I've gone down, but it has involved a risk of enforcement over a ten year period. You seem to want the benefits without taking that risk. 

Haha- buy low sell high! :-)

It’s not that I want the benefits without the risk, I know I can’t get a promise from the Council in any way- that is just wishful thinking. So I know there will be a risk involved- and a rather large one at that too most likely.

I have heard about the 4-year rule and 10-year rule but am not aure of their content exactly. In basic terms what I understand is if you use it as a dwelling and are not challenged over it for 4 or 10 years then you can apply to the Council to change the use to a dwelling, and you may still be refused. 

-Is this the jist of it? 

-What decides if it is 4 years or 10 years?
-And how are you getting along with that or have you reached the end of the road and been successful? 

Thank you for all your help. It is appreciated.

Dillon141

davidmcn said:

Dillon141 said:

davidmcn said:

Dillon141 said:

davidmcn said:

Dillon141 said:

Ah well, I can ask the question of the council I guess, then I’ll have my answer and move on! 

Why would you be asking anyway? Surely it's up to the vendor (if they want to sell to you) to do the donkeywork.

Currently it is a holiday let and that is what the current owner obviously accepted as PP on the outbuildings. They also are moving from the area so really I was asking with the view of whether or not if someone who has been local all his life would be able to get rid of the PP clause for it to be a holiday let and actually be a dwelling seeing as there are shortages in the supply of local housing. 

The sale price now would obviously be lower than if it was a dwelling. 

What I mean is maybe the council would rather, or be more willing to change it if it was purchased by someone local to change the use so it could be a dwelling....

No, planning decisions aren't "personal" in that way. If there were now objective planning reasons for why the holiday restriction was no longer required, and it could then be removed, then the vendor could sell to anyone (at a full market price).

You do sometimes get housing restricted to "locals" or key workers, but that still has problems about restricting the marketability as you'd expect to have the same restrictions when you sell, and mortgage lenders would have similar concerns about how easily they could get rid of it.

The situation that I would obviously find perfect is if I enquired with the council and they said that I could remove the condition, or at least that they would be open to it in a couple of years, and that I purchase the holiday let at a price which reflected the current restrictions on it and after becoming the owner could then remove the condition.

But I’m sure that is a billion to one chance. 

Although I’m assuming that any discussions between myself and the council before I was to buy the property would remain between us? What I mean is, if the council told me they would be willing to remove the condition, they would not be obliged to tell the current owner of our discussions.?

The council can't say anything remotely binding, and I suspect wouldn't give you particularly useful advice. Besides, how are you going to pay for it with the restriction still in place? Do you have enough cash? Mortgages for holiday homes are tricky even for those who already own another property. 

Just a chink of light would be encouraging. What I mean is if they said not now but in a 3 years the objections would lose their hold on the situation (I know I’m asking way too much with that it’s just an example), or said they would have no real objection if I was to ask for the removal of the condition then I would feel encouraged at least. Some good news or legal reason or favourable circumstance to be optimistic would be nice.

I wouldn’t mind buying it and carrying on letting it out for a few years if I was able to take that condition away some time. But ultimately I would like to be able to live in it. 

I have a large chunk of the cash and have already sourced a mortgage for the rest from a company which specialises in mortgages for holiday lets. In fact I think that is all they offer mortgages for. They may be slightly more expensive but obviously it’s like a commercial loan so I can’t expect cheap finance to help me buy it.

Dillon141

frogglet said:

Ask the owner if they have already tried to lift the restriction.

They have tried but it was basically almost immediately after they finished the build.

I’m not sure how far he went into it. Whether or not he actually made an application or went down the whole process. I assume there are appeals after applications are turned down and possibly going to the Welsh office. To be honest I believe the probably asked via a phone call or e-mail, received the answer “no because that’s what the planning was for” and then left it alone. 

So the issue has not been tested with any investigation by anyone with planning law knowledge. 

Davesnave

Dillon141 said:

Davesnave said:

Dillon141 said:

davidmcn said:

Dillon141 said:

davidmcn said:

Dillon141 said:

Ah well, I can ask the question of the council I guess, then I’ll have my answer and move on! 

Why would you be asking anyway? Surely it's up to the vendor (if they want to sell to you) to do the donkeywork.

Currently it is a holiday let and that is what the current owner obviously accepted as PP on the outbuildings. They also are moving from the area so really I was asking with the view of whether or not if someone who has been local all his life would be able to get rid of the PP clause for it to be a holiday let and actually be a dwelling seeing as there are shortages in the supply of local housing. 

The sale price now would obviously be lower than if it was a dwelling. 

What I mean is maybe the council would rather, or be more willing to change it if it was purchased by someone local to change the use so it could be a dwelling....

No, planning decisions aren't "personal" in that way. If there were now objective planning reasons for why the holiday restriction was no longer required, and it could then be removed, then the vendor could sell to anyone (at a full market price).

You do sometimes get housing restricted to "locals" or key workers, but that still has problems about restricting the marketability as you'd expect to have the same restrictions when you sell, and mortgage lenders would have similar concerns about how easily they could get rid of it.

Of course.

The situation that I would obviously find perfect is if I enquired with the council and they said that I could remove the condition, or at least that they would be open to it in a couple of years, and that I purchase the holiday let at a price which reflected the current restrictions on it and after becoming the owner could then remove the condition.

We'd all like to buy a property with a depressed price because of a legal restriction and later profit from its removal, all thanks to the collusion of the local council. I believe that might be viewed as fraud.

The normal situation is that one may buy a restricted property, often with cash because of weak mortgageability, and then not comply with the restriction in the hopethe breach will not be noticed or the legal situation enforced. Then, after the appropriate period of non-compliance has elapsed, usually ten years, it is normally  possible to obtain a Certificate of Lawful Development, removing the need to comply with the restriction.

The above is the route I've gone down, but it has involved a risk of enforcement over a ten year period. You seem to want the benefits without taking that risk. 

I have heard about the 4-year rule and 10-year rule but am not sure of their content exactly. In basic terms what I understand is if you use it as a dwelling and are not challenged over it for 4 or 10 years then you can apply to the Council to change the use to a dwelling, and you may still be refused. 

-Is this the jist of it? 

-What decides if it is 4 years or 10 years?
-And how are you getting along with that or have you reached the end of the road and been successful?

4 year rule: Someone builds a dwelling, doesn't hide it or seek planning permission, but lives in it. If the build isn't challenged, then after 4 years have elapsed, enforcement is no longer possible and they may apply for (and probably receive) a Certificate of Lawful Development. A certain Mr Fidler tried this, but hid his property behind bales of hay and found this disapplied his build from the effect of these rules. He had to pull it down.

10 Year Rule: A property has a planning restriction on it like an Agricultural Occupancy Condition, Holiday Occupancy Condition etc.This means it should only be lived in by those who can meet the specific criteria laid down in that condition, which can vary. If after 10 years of occupancy someone proves they lived in the property without meeting the condition, they may apply for (and probably receive) a Certificate of Lawful Development, allowing them to stay and sell to others who also don't meet the original planning criteria.

OR

At any time, the owner of the property may ask the council to remove the restriction; the usual argument being that the intended purpose is unviable and the property unsellableat anything except a fire sale price. I know some local authorities that recognise agricultural properties with small acreages can rarely generate a living wage and grant the removal of AOCs. My own authority and parish council are both very reluctant to do this, even when the property has been marketed at a fair price for a year or more.

We've lived in our property with an agricultural occupancy condition for almost 12 years, but we've never had agriculture or forestry as our main employment, though we've dabbled in horticulture. We use our land to assist another person with traditional farming and people assume we earn money that way, but  payments are in kind and fairly minimal, so it costs us more than we earn. We'll get around to applying for a CLEUD in due course, but as this is a 'forever' home and we're secure, it's not top of our agenda. We took a risk buying this property, but we judged that the council either wouldn't know or wish to pick a fight with us when they have far more blatant planning breaches to deal with.

Ozzuk

I did this a few years ago - turned a number of holiday lets into residential.  I don't know if process is the same now (this was Wales) but a few things:  you'd likely have to purchse the property with a commercial mortgage (though there are specialist holiday mortgages available now) typically with lower LTV (you need more deposit).  We even needed a business case.
We bought then applied for change of use to residential.  Our new neighbours supplied a letter of support (increased privacy/reduced traffic etc) but that probably didn't do much (but didn't hurt).  The council made us offer the property to the local community in case they wanted to take it on (they didn't) and we had to show figures that viability was reducing.
It went through, it was then a simple process to register the new house names with the post office.

Dillon141

Ozzuk said:

I did this a few years ago - turned a number of holiday lets into residential.  I don't know if process is the same now (this was Wales) but a few things:  you'd likely have to purchse the property with a commercial mortgage (though there are specialist holiday mortgages available now) typically with lower LTV (you need more deposit).  We even needed a business case.
We bought then applied for change of use to residential.  Our new neighbours supplied a letter of support (increased privacy/reduced traffic etc) but that probably didn't do much (but didn't hurt).  The council made us offer the property to the local community in case they wanted to take it on (they didn't) and we had to show figures that viability was reducing.
It went through, it was then a simple process to register the new house names with the post office.

Do you mind me asking if this was in North Wales?

What do you mean they made you offer the property to the local community? 

So you had to show that economically, as a business/holiday let it was not viable? That is, was not making enough money? Was this the case anyway or did you tweak things somehow to reduce bookings (for example charge more to scare some bookings off).

Thank you.

sheramber

What I meant with strange is that it looks odd as the house and outbuildings are set away from the road as one resident and to us locally now it looks strange that two houses exist there. I understand when the original owners converted it it made sense but seems strange to sell them apart- visually if not legally. Lol.
Will it not look just as  strange if someone is living in it permanently?

AdrianC

sheramber said:

What I meant with strange is that it looks odd as the house and outbuildings are set away from the road as one resident and to us locally now it looks strange that two houses exist there. I understand when the original owners converted it it made sense but seems strange to sell them apart- visually if not legally. Lol.
Will it not look just as  strange if someone is living in it permanently?

It looked that strange when it was all covered by one title...

Ozzuk

Dillon141 said:

Ozzuk said:

I did this a few years ago - turned a number of holiday lets into residential.  I don't know if process is the same now (this was Wales) but a few things:  you'd likely have to purchse the property with a commercial mortgage (though there are specialist holiday mortgages available now) typically with lower LTV (you need more deposit).  We even needed a business case.
We bought then applied for change of use to residential.  Our new neighbours supplied a letter of support (increased privacy/reduced traffic etc) but that probably didn't do much (but didn't hurt).  The council made us offer the property to the local community in case they wanted to take it on (they didn't) and we had to show figures that viability was reducing.
It went through, it was then a simple process to register the new house names with the post office.

Do you mind me asking if this was in North Wales?

What do you mean they made you offer the property to the local community? 

So you had to show that economically, as a business/holiday let it was not viable? That is, was not making enough money? Was this the case anyway or did you tweak things somehow to reduce bookings (for example charge more to scare some bookings off).

Thank you.

South Wales.  We had to get in touch with the local community council to see if they wanted to take it on (purchase it), no idea what the council had in mind, but some rule about not depriving the community.  I can't remember what we did with the figures, they were okay so perhaps we did 'massage' them.