26 May 2010
The intricacies of residential planning rules have been played out in the courts recently, with two very different results. Michael Larcombe, property partner at B P Collins, says the opposing results highlight the need to consult planning regulations very carefully and take advice from legal experts.
Case study one
When Welwyn Hatfield Council granted planning permission to Alan Beesley, it was to build a barn on green belt land, for agricultural use only. The application stated that the building was to be used only for storing hay and would not require sewage disposal.
In fact, Mr Beesley never used the building as a barn, instead constructing a three bedroom house inside the outer structure and connecting it to the mains drainage system.
After four years of living in the "barn" he applied, under Section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, for a certificate of lawfulness for existing use, aiming to take advantage of the four year time limit under current legislation for local planning authorities to enforce planning control in domestic dwellings cases.
When the case came to the Court of Appeal, it ruled that although Mr Beesley had clearly intended to deceive the council in order to build a domestic dwelling on green belt land, the case should not be treated any differently from one where planning permission had been obtained in good faith, and there was a genuine alteration to the original plans during the course of building work.
Acknowledging that the decision would appear "incomprehensible" to decent, law-abiding citizens, the Court said it had to rule in Mr Beesley's favour because as it stands, the law does not differentiate between circumstances in which planning permission is obtained in good faith, and those where the application is intended to deceive the authorities.
Case study two
However, when farmer Robert Fidler took a similar approach and, without planning permission, secretly built a castle-style home hidden behind 40 foot straw bales, he wasn't so fortunate when it came to court.
Like Mr Beesley, he hoped to take advantage of the fact that if there are no objections to a building within four years, the owner can keep it.
He and his family moved into the mock-Tudor property in 2002 and lived there for four years before removing the bales, thinking they were immune from prosecution.
Reigate and Banstead Borough Council disagreed and, in 2007, ordered him to demolish the house. When he appealed, planning officials refused to change their minds, saying the building work only finished when the straw bales were removed – so the four year rule did not apply.
Mr Fidler took his case to the High Court, but in February this year, a judge upheld the order to have the house destroyed, saying that because the farmer had always planned to remove the bales, they had to be considered part of the "totality" of the building. Mr Fidler says he will continue to appeal.
Drawing on our considerable experience and expertise, B P Collins advise on all personal property matters, including buying and selling a home, co-ownership, re-mortgaging, granting and renewing residential tenancies and the purchase and management of investment property. .
Please call a member of our residential property team on 01753 279064, complete the online enquiry form or email resproperty@bpcollins.co.uk for further information or advice. |
