To give you an update on the Backyard Bungalow saga?

[OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere]

I have kept quiet over the last few months not from any wish to be mysterious but because feck all has happened.

Well I say nothing has happened, the neighbours are now living in the bungalow and their house is occupied by a bewildering array of people. They are fairly quiet in the house but do many annoying things outside including talking on mobiles early in the morning and late at night and having sex in cars.

Anyway, got a letter from planning today telling me that planning permission for the mahoooosive fence they put up after they did all the annoying, noisy and intrusive building work, (the bastards) has been REFUSED.

Yes REFUSED! This is in no small part to the amazing letter written for me by MrsMarjoribanks. I can just picture their faces when they received it, their bemused looks as they tried to marry up the vision of ME with the letter in front of them

So the fecking feckers have to take down their ugly fecking 10 foot fence.
I hope they dont, I hope they continue to think they can get away with anything they like, thus drawing more attention to themselves and getting their just desserts. SO NER!

Fantastic MrsD

The first one is the decision notice I was thinking of

www.permitteddevelopment.org/Appeal-Decision-10A.html has a review of the case but I haven't tracked it down on the portal yet.

This is the important bit of the analysis:

Main Conclusion:

Where a large outbuilding would have many of the facilities that are typically found in a self-contained residential unit, then even though it might not have all such facilities (in this case there would have been no kitchen), it is still possible for it to fail to comply with the ?incidental? requirement of Class E.

Would you like me to draft something using these cases as examples?

I am really tempted to write a sarky email back.
Something about how lovely it is to see that the neighbours have adopted so many teenagers recently and is it nice that the rules on transracial adoptions have been relaxed.

And arent they all big boys and girls?

FFS.

I would very much.

Thank you Jins.

I feel a bit grrrrr right now. There just doesnt seem to be the will in this borough to stop this happening.

I know I am annoyed because its happening next door but there is the larger implication too.

Substandard housing and people coining it in renting out potentially unsafe properties with no comeback.

It stinks.

MrsDV You really need to publish these collected threads. Who knew planning could be so fascinating!

Keep at the relevant councils - things move at a snails pace but I'm sure they will get there in the end if you keep nagging them

Fellow MN Planning team these are the appeal decisions:-
www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.1089091&NAME=/Decision..pdf

www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.1261388&NAME=/Decision.pdf

A quick skim of these suggests to me that MrsD's planning dept are not correct in the email but do any of you know of any recent case law that would overturn the Inspectors conclusions?

I have just recieved an email from Housing Standards. They have allocated a worker to visit the property.

I really hope they do not a.give them a warning of the visit and b.are as gullible as whoever believed that it was one family living next door

www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=16818

Don't know if this is any use. It is about groups of migrant workers claiming they were all one family to avoid HMO status?

Oops :

www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=16818

Here you are MrsD

All comments/corrections/amendments welcomed

Thank you for your email in which you advise me that action will not be taken against the unauthorised residential occupation of an out building in the grounds of XXX. As you are aware this was originally constructed as a gym for use by the occupants of the existing house.

I have been advised previously that this outbuilding did not require planning permission as it was considered to be permitted development. It must therefore fall within Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 which allows for ?The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of any building or enclosure, swimming or other pool required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such, or the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of such a building or enclosure.?

Class E does not provide for development if it relates to a dwelling. The construction of the building can be carried out as permitted development but its occupation as living accommodation, especially when it is being used as an entirely separate residential unit is not covered by the order. In Rambridge v SSE [1996] the Judge found that the provisions of Class E allowed building only if it is required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse and not for a primary residential use.

I am surprised that your investigation did not identify the fact that the house is no longer in occupation by a single family. It is clear that it has become a house in multiple occupation, a material change of use requiring planning permission in itself.

You have inspected the outbuilding and have confirmed that it does not have a kitchen. However it does have bathroom facilities and is clearly being occupied as a residential unit. A relatively recent appeal decision (APP/L3625/X/08/2088922) considers a broadly similar situation. The development in question was a single storey building in the rear garden of a property. It was proposed by the appellant that as a ?granny annexe? it would be used for ancillary purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house and as such would not require planning permission. The building would not have a kitchen, the land would remain as a single planning unit and separate gardens would not be created. The Inspector found that the building has all the facilities required for day to day living apart from a kitchen but this did not preclude it being for primary residential use as the introduction of small appliances would allow its independent occupation. The appeal was dismissed.

Considering this decision and bearing in mind the fact that the unit is no longer in occupation by one family, I would ask you to review your assessment of the case. I look forward to hearing from you when your further investigations are complete.

I luffs you.

It looks fab to me but I will await any comments from the Planning Posse.

Shamelessly rubbernecking on this thread.

There's no way of making it simpler at this stage though :(

They dont want simple. They have had simple. They have had 'they said they were building an oblong gym and now they have built a bungalow, what are you going to do about it?'

I am so fed up with having to force people to do something. They can look up stuff.

Jins, I wonder whether its worth pointing out that the people living in the house don't actually have use of the back garden at all (which is why MrsDV is having problems with youth on the phone outside her front window) and, effectively, two separate units have been formed ????

Ooh OP I have some experience in this area - if they are living in the bungalow they will have installed some form of kitchen this makes it rateable for council tax. So report them for avoidance of that. They will send out a valuations office - it'll only cost them a band A council tax rate probably but worth doing.

And if you know they are living there and can provide evidence the council will be compelled to act.

Deffo film the sex in cars. You may be able to get them a Crimbo/Asbo/laugh on youtube.

klaxon - they've not installed a kitchen - that's part of the problem in proving that they're using it as a main residence.

I thought about that. I'm in two minds (of course I am - I'm a planner ) as the appeal decision was such a good match. It's very hard isn't it without seeing the site?

Ah I see that they have no kitchen. But you can have a kitchen without fitted units. Our local planning authority considers a room with facilities for cooking such as a microwave as a kitchen. It's not whether you DO use it as a kitchen, it's whether you CAN. I know because we get two lots of council tax for an annexe we don't use, purely because it's got a couple of built in units (until a few weeks ago it didn't even have a kettle!)

That's the problem Klaxon - MrsD's planning authority is going rogue on this one. See her email from them upthread

Have you looked at the photos on MrsDV's profile? You get a pretty good idea of what's happening.

Out of interest MrsDV, if you were to install cctv looking down your garden, do you know how much of the adjoining property might also be visible accidentally?

Yes they are great pictures.

MrsD how are the two bits of garden separated? Is there a separate access to the back garden?

they are semidetached so have side access.
They all use the front door afaik.

I'm intrigued how the planning authority is NOT acting. Have you tried the media?

Sort of. But I didnt like the way the journo behaved so I backed out.
I dont like my neighbours one little bit but had photos of the woman pushing her buggy and stuff.
I didnt want to be part of all that.

I'd go Daily Mail on them frankly. Yes they will be vilified but how else are you going to get this sorted with an intransigent council.