Certificate of lawful development

[clifford1]

Some friends of ours have lived in a barn they converted into a house, without planning permission, over 10 years ago.

The local authority has now found out, and has demanded that they apply for a certificate of lawful development, submitting evidence of use as a house over the period.

Are they obliged to apply, or can they just provide evidence of use and tell the council to get lost?

 

[tony1851]

No, they are not obliged to apply. If it's been used openly as a house for more than 4 years, with no attempt at concealment, there is nothing the council can do.
It doesn't mean its lawful, its just immune from enforcement.
They can't insist on your friend providing proof, either; that would almost be a case of 'guilty until you prove yourself innocent'.
Just ignore the council; they're probably after an application fee to bolster their income.

 

[^woody^]

The 10 year rule will apply. And evidence must be to the satisfaction of the council

If your friends want to tell the council to get lost then that is up to them. They wont be so arrogant when the family are out on their arse and having to pay for the demolition

 

[tony1851]

The 10 year rule will apply.

Yes, that's for change of use, but doesn't the 4 - year rule also apply to use of a building as a dwelling? (assuming there's been no concealment).

 

[chapeau]

Indeed it does

Where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the change of use of any building to use as a single dwellinghouse, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date of the breach.

Tweedledee should know by now not to get out of his hole.

 

[^woody^]

Yes, that's for change of use, but doesn't the 4 - year rule also apply to use of a building as a dwelling? (assuming there's been no concealment).

Use as a dwelling does not in itself mean that the four year rule applies. There are several factors taken into account, and merely living in/converting a barn without making it look like a dwelling, or carrying out other external building work will mean that it's just a change of use, and the ten year rule will apply.

 

[tony1851]

Yes, that's for change of use, but doesn't the 4 - year rule also apply to use of a building as a dwelling? (assuming there's been no concealment).

Use as a dwelling does not in itself mean that the four year rule applies. There are several factors taken into account, and merely living in/converting a barn without making it look like a dwelling, or carrying out other external building work will mean that it's just a change of use, and the ten year rule will apply.

If it involves 'use as a dwelling', then you must be dwelling (ie living ) in it. There is nothing to stipulate that it must be made to look like a dwelling.

What does 'merely living in' mean? Not sure if you can 'merely live' in anything; you either live in something, or you don't..

 

[^woody^]

There is nothing to stipulate that it must be made to look like a dwelling.

What does 'merely living in' mean?

There are precedents and tests to determine whether the four or ten year rule will apply, and whether there has been operational development or just a change of use

It hinges on whether the living in the property has resulted from operational development or a change of use, and whether the building is in fact a single dwelling with one use

So in short, one can't just "merely live" in a building and call it a dwelling and expect the four year rule to apply

 

[chapeau]

Oh dear Tweedledum, got yourself in a bit of a hole there and your response is to keep digging. Most smart people would have shut up.

So when you stated with such authority

The 10 year rule will apply.

according to your own waffle you really didn't know that did you?

So go on then, cite your 'precedents' which make this a ten year rule case and not a four.

 

[clifford1]

They have lived there for more than 10 years anyway, so does it matter whether the rule is 4 or 10?

 

[^woody^]

It matters whether they can prove, to the councils satisfaction that the property is beyond enforcement for the relevant period

Have they been paying 10 years community charge for instance

 

[chapeau]

You don't actually know what 'precedent' means, do you ?

To Original poster.

From your description it appears that they have satisfied the requirements set down by Parliament to stay in their home as far as planning goes. whether they want to cooperate with the council to formalise this is up to them but if it is as you say then no reason why not to. council have their boxes to tick.

Not formalising it might cause problems when they want to sell. if council start throwing book at them then might be easier to cooperate otherwise at mercy of magistrates who tend to side with authority.

 

[jeds]

They have lived there for more than 10 years anyway, so does it matter whether the rule is 4 or 10?

Clifford, the time limit for a change of use to a single dwelling house is four years not ten. This is important because it is much easier to get a 4 year certificate of lawfulness than a 10 year. My advice to your friends is to collect together the relevant evidence and if they can do so with no problem then they might was well apply for the CoL and get it out of the way. Can you think of any reason why they wouldn't?

They need anything that shows they have been living in the property: Invoices for building works, dated photographs, council tax records, utility bills, any official stuff with the address on, etc. The standard of evidence is based on the balance of probabilities. Which means if they have any decent evidence at all the planners will have to have some contrary evidence. If they can't come up with contrary evidence then the certificate will be issued. If they've lived there for more than 10 years it should be a formality