land on separate deed to house and permitted development?

[aranbh]

Hi all,

I'm not sure how the permitted development regulations apply to my situation so any advice will be greatly appreciated.

Firstly a little bit of background info..

I have purchased a house which has a garden that is split by a pedestrian right of way running across it (which the house to one side of me has the benefit of). The house and first part of the garden is on 1 title deed and the second half of the garden starting after the right of way is on a second title deed. There is currently a garage built on the second half of the garden.
I want to remove the garage and replace it with an outbuilding. Will the allowance for development on 50% of land surrounding the original house apply? As there is no dwelling on the second deed do permitted development regulation apply at all?

Thanks

Aran

 

[JamesNorton01]

As I understand the property and its garden can be made up of as many titles as you like as long as they are in the same ownership. Garden tends to be defined as being within the curtilage of the dwelling and this term is referenced in the GPDO but is a bit ill defined, typically its the bit within a boundary fence that sort of thing.

Any help?

J

 

[aranbh]

Thanks for the quick response.

I do not own the right of way so would that still apply?

Aran

 

[^woody^]

The RoW is irrelevant and not a physical attribute. The garden is taken "as one" if they are linked and bounded by a single boundary fence just like a single garden

 

[aranbh]

ok thanks for the advice

 

[^woody^]

As I understand the property and its garden can be made up of as many titles as you like as long as they are in the same ownership.

That's not correct.

You can't have pockets of land scattered all over town and claim that they are all part of the same garden.

They have to be connected

 

[JamesNorton01]

Garden tends to be defined as being within the curtilage of the dwelling and this term is referenced in the GPDO but is a bit ill defined, typically its the bit within a boundary fence that sort of thing

I thought that was implicit with a combination of common sense and the rest of the sentence...

sorry for any confusion...

J

 

[^woody^]

I thought that was implicit with a combination of common sense and the rest of the sentence...

WTF? Talk English man

 

[JamesNorton01]

buy a dictionary.

J

 

[lpasengland]

Hi Aran,

You have to be very careful with this one. Permitted development rights only apply within the "curtilage" of a house, and in non-standard situations (such as yours) it can be very difficult to be sure exactly what is the curtilage. As far as I understand, there are a number of factors that help to determine whether a piece of land is within the curtilage of a house, including its proximity to the house, whether it's directly connected to the house, whether it's part of the same ownership as the house, how it's been used in the past, etc.

I don't think there's any one single test that will give you a definite answer. As such, if you want to (say) build an outbuilding on this extra piece of land under permitted development rights, then you should definitely apply to your local Council for a certificate of lawfulness prior to starting works, because without such a certificate it might not be possible to be sure that the extra piece of land is definitely within the curtilage of your house.

Steve

 

[big-all]

i could be wrong but its 2 separate plots and must be treated as such
you may find iff you amalgamate them into one then you will be ok but you need to ask
otherwise some one that owns a whole street could do as they wish on say 3 properties then sell off the others as there separate plots not claiming that there development rights had been transferred to plots 3 7 and 12

 

[JamesNorton01]

Key thing is curtilage and not ownership. Sadly as which so much in planning its ambiguously defined.

In a Minnie Mouse house with white picket fence its self evident the further you stray from that the more difficult to be definitive it gets.

CofL is not necessary per se a letter to the LPA explaining exactly what ur uptown and why its PD, with their agreeing reply kept in a safe place should suffice.

Check on planning portal for details of PD.

J.