Living space above large garage, not allowed...

[devs]

Hi all, I've purchased a house with an incomplete large detached garage. Planning has been approved for a 'store room' above, but I would like to make this a living space for visiting family and have had a drawing done to incorporate two double bedrooms kitchen / living area, store and shower w/c.

I'm been informed that local planners will not approve this type of development as it has been abused in the pass and that I could simply fence the garage off and sell as a separate detached dwelling.

Has anyone been in this situation before and how did you get on?

I wondered if something legal could be drawn up to state that I would not sell?

Any thoughts?

Cheers,

Devs.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

The usual (if inappropriate) approach is to do everything bar the kitchen and get it signed off by Building Control, then fit the kitchen. After 4 years of remaining undetected it becomes immune from any enforcement.

 

[devs]

Great thanks for that!

I plan to install a WC downstairs.

Do you think I could install one upstairs and define the room walls without raising suspicion?

I had considered just installing the lower w/c and keeping the above as one large space to revisit later.

I think I may have an issue with the void that has been left within the original brick as it's only 100mm and I believe 150mm is now the requirement for something that's habitatal?

Thanks for the help!

 

[^woody^]

It's not just the physical conversion, but the usage too, in which case the 10 year limit will apply.

 

[devs]

Thanks Woody, is that standard in all areas? The structure has been up for 5 years without a roof if that counts for anything??

 

[^woody^]

It's national, England and Wales. And the clock starts ticking from when the work is complete not started, or the change of use begins.

 

[tony1851]

@ Woody, correct me if I'm wrong, but surely the use of any building as a dwelling comes under the 4-year rule?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/171B

 

[^woody^]

It's not that clear cut. Just because development (ie the physical structure) may be immune because of the four year rule - say conversion to a dwelling, does not mean that the use of that structure is immune too. In addition factors relating to the context of the planning unit, the permission given for use of the garage and conditions set, may also influence what time period applies.

Then are the tests for use as a separate planning unit or ancillary use.

 

[tony1851]

does not mean that the use of that structure is immune too.

But paragraph (2) of the rule mentions "change of use of any building to a dwelling"?

 

[^woody^]

But paragraph (2) of the rule mentions "change of use of any building to a dwelling"?

You can't take a single paragraph in a statute of many other parts, revisions and precedents in isolation.

 

[Nakajo]

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. I'm unaware of any case law that contradicts this position (but then again I'm unaware of most case law, so that's not saying much.)

 

[^woody^]

It's not clear cut

171B(3) allows for ".... any other breach of planning control" to invoke 10 years

The breach may not fit into parts (1) or (2) for several reasons - which may include the physical development, or the approved use, or change of use or fraudulant action.

 

[tony1851]

It's not clear cut

171B(3) allows for ".... any other breach of planning control" to invoke 10 years

The breach may not fit into parts (1) or (2) for several reasons - which may include the physical development, or the approved use, or change of use or fraudulant action.

Why not have a rest and put that shovel down?!

 

[^woody^]

Why not have a rest and put that shovel down?!

I don't know what you are laughing at.

I won't quote the recent precedent cases in case you hurt yourself.