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!

If you a bar-b-que, and invite me MrsD I can drunk and fall into the fence, thus knocking it down like I did at dh gaffers do last summer .

They haven't invited us yet this year.

have a, even.

You would need to be some kinda drunk to knock that sodding fence down pathan

If I tell you that you could cut a loaf of bread on my arse, you'll know what I mean MrsD, I got junk in the trunk, I could probably mix you a Pimms and knock the thing over with a swift "All the Single Ladies" move..

MrsD

If they are operating an HMO then (my bold):

An HMO Licence is required if you are the owner of residential property and you give permission for that property to be occupied by three (3) or more 'qualifying persons' from three (3) or more families, as their only or main residence. Please note that a 'main residence' is defined not simply by the number of days spent at the property, but also by the quality of occupation.

It is a criminal offence to operate an HMO without being in possession of a current HMO Licence issued by the Local Authority. It is also a criminal offence for any person to act as an Agent for an owner of an HMO who does not hold a current HMO Licence

Does that apply all over the country wet?
I thought it was only mandatory in Scotland and in some counties in England. I only did a quick google though.

If only it were that simple.

Arf at pathan's big arse though

Sorry all, had fallen off my Threads I'm On but spotted you in Active Convos.

The only thing I would add Jins is that if the bungalow isn't considered to be incidental then it falls under Class A of the GPDO as primary living accommodation. Therefore it would need permission if it didn't meet the conditions in that Class - even if it was considered not be a separate dwelling or a HMO.

Agree with mistle's point that not allowing use of the back garden makes 2 separate units - it is always assumed that an annexe would share amenity space, in my experience (although I haven't searched case law for this).

Also bear in mind that an HMO in planning terms (not necessarily in housing standards terms) is 6 or more residents who are unrelated and not living together as a household.

We haven't had any granny annexe cases lately - though I have had to reluctantly approve one to become a separate dwelling. It was written all over it from the start, though thankfully the original consent was way before my time.

Oh, the BBC think planning is interesting. I'll say no more!

Here in Southampton an HMO is 5 or more : hence why I let my old house to 4 students.

Totally agree with Mrs DeV not getting the press involved. I've read enough of the press and the threads on this to know that they would deliberately get the wrong end of the stick (any stick)

BUT
getting housing / benefits / immigration is a whole new ball game that HAS to be worth investigating.
:-)

I was working on the fact that they'd said it was incidental back in one of the earlier threads but I agree about class A and in fact all of the suggestions.

My heads in bits at the moment do if anyone fancies making the amendments please feel free

I've just realised my comment about the Beeb thinking planning is interesting could be construed as I've alerted them to this thread. I haven't.

Who was it that was in the planning press about back garden ghettos recently?

Apologies that I haven't read all of your threads MrsDV- have you tried your local councillors and/or MP's? I used to know the head of planning in my old area and he would have gotten involved in something like this.

I agree that these people are taking the piss, not just from a planning point of view. The reason HMO's are licensed is cos people like this provide substandard accommodation with no regard for safety or providing a reasonable standard. I bet they are also avoiding paying all the taxes, costs and fees that decent landlords pay which safeguard tenants.

I wonder how they find their tenants and if Shelter would be interested? We could do a mumsnet sting.

Mistle - it was in Planning wasn't it. Was it Sir Peter Hall's endpiece? He looks nothing like I expected him to when I was reading Cities of Tomorrow at uni.

Thanks everyone.
I have been slogging away with a sodding essay all evening and i havent quite finished it yet .
I am going to tidy it up tommorow morning and then send the bugger off.
I will then get on to the this.

Jin's letter looks grand to me but if anyone wants to put any bits in it before I send it I would really appreciate the help. I am not confident to add bits in myself because I dont really understand and might shove them in the wrong place.

The HMO stuff I looked at didnt mention numbers. It concentrated more on non related adults sharing a house and facilitites. The bits I looked at were pretty clear that next door is a HMO but I suppose I will find out once they have been visited by Housing Standards.

I am not making much sense now, I have been immersed in family law all night and my brain has no room for planning law!
Night all and thanks again.

Hang on MrsD . I'm making a few amendments and will put it up for comments.

It ain't getting shorter though :(

Anyone around for further views?????

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 falling 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.

If you now consider that the development falls within Class A of the GPDO as primary living accommodation rather than Class E then all conditions of that class must be met. However Class A does not allow the use of the outbuilding as a separate residential unit and this is the current use of the building. The existing house is occupied by a number of people who are not part of the family unit and have no access to the rear garden therefore not sharing facilities or amenity space with the outbuilding. The development has effectively created two separate planning units which if allowed to continue will create significant difficulties for future enforcement and may set an unwelcome precedent in the local area.

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 is occupied by a number of unrelated people who do not form a household and may well have 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.

Looks good to me Jins

And me. Not sure they can argue with that really.

Wow! Have just been directed here from a different thread and you lot are great! Feel like Jins, mistlethrush and MissMaroribanks are the real life embodiment of the Mumsnet logo. Just need rulers and in hand instead of babies!

Am in awe.

Amazing isn't it - and such a good read !

Do you think BBC 4 might commision a series - like Silks only Planners ?

Still loving gymaglow .

There was a series a few years ago called The Planners are Coming

It wasn't bad as I recall.

In fact episode 4 looks particularly relevant

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00drrsw

I've found a clip

I see my thread is moving over to a sort of Planning Porn theme

That is fab jins! I am going to do the 'friday frightener' and send it about 3.30pm tomorrow

Just to give them something to think about over the weekend.

Mwuh ha ha.

Its a nice LONG weekend to be pondering it at 3am repeatedly MrsDV... but don't leave it TOO late as in my experience lots of LPA planning officers seem to find that its a good time to go on site visits in an appropriate direction at about 2.45pm on a Friday afternoon.