Landowner/council dispute - being asked to destroy home

[TigerMoon]

Can anyone offer advice? My friend has a home, built in a remote setting on the outskirts of our town. She has lived here for six years and during all this time has paid council tax to the council as well as land rent to the landowner.

The landowner has since lost a dispute with the council and has been instructed to demolish my friend's home. (log cabin style built to a very high standard - barely visible from the road).

My friend is going to write to the council planning department putting forward their case but I just wondered if there are any other steps she can take to avoid being made homeless.

My gut feeling is that as the proper planning permissions weren't obtained before building, that she doesn't have a leg to stand on but just wondered if anyone had any advice?

Thank you!

She needs to let the Council know that she'll be homeless when it's demolished so they can house her beforehand.

I've sat on my council's planning committee (in England) for the past few years. If a demolition order has been issued, and the landlord has already exhausted the appeals process, there is very little hope I'm afraid. Appeals are heard by government inspector, and that's almost the final port of call. If the appeal is turned down, and the person appealing thinks a legal mistake has been made, they can take things to the High Court.

The only person who can appeal the decision is the person who submitted the original application (or probably didn't in this case).

There are many reasons why planning permission, whether in advance or retrospective, may not be granted. The land may be green belt or protected in some way, it may not be suitable for drainage or other environmental reasons, it could be on land at risk of flooding, it could be seen as our of character for the area etc. Most authorities have a local plan which is pretty specific about what is or isn't allowed. Hugely frustrating for your friend, I know...

Presumably though your friend is just a tenant?

She needs to let the Council know that she'll be homeless when it's demolished so they can house her beforehand.

Why do you assume she has a right to be housed by the council? Very few people do, primarily those with children or severe disabilities. Even then, if they have made themselves intentionally homeless (building a home with no regs or planning permission is likely to be deemed her fault), then that duty ends.

• It's primarily those with children or severe disabilities that the council have a duty to house, not that don't qualify!

A tenant can't reasonably be expected to check the home they are renting has the correct permissions in place. The OP's friend has been deceived by the LL as have the council.

There’s nothing she can do, and the fact that she has paid council tax and rent is irrelevant to the planning process.

If she’s been paying rent there, why will she be homeless when this house is demolished? Can’t she get another private rental?

Land rent.
I think she owns the home but not the land, like the way people pay a land fee in mobile home parks.
What legal advice was she given before buying?

I don't think she'll be successful and could waste ££££ and stress / time trying to fight this.

Thanks for all the responses so far.

Just to clarify - yes, it's just land rent. She actually built and owns the property herself. I think the arrangement she came to with the landowner was quite a loose one as it was a mate - so she probably didn't seek much legal advice at the time to be honest.

It's one thing not seeking legal advice when coming to an arrangement between mates, but if she built the house and didn't seek planning advice then I have zero sympathy and I suspect the council would rule she has made herself intentionally homeless once the house is demolished.

She had better start saving for a rental deposit and get looking for a new place.

Might be wise to see if she can sell the structure for someone to dismantle and remove themselves, in order to try to recoup something.

Right, sorry I hadn’t understood that.

I would expect the council to say that by building a house in breach of planning regs, which then needs to be demolished, she has made herself intentionally homeless because ultimately this is her fault. It may depend on how much pressure there is on social housing in her area, if they have space then they may be a bit more flexible.

If she seriously wants to appeal, then she needs specialist legal advice from a planning lawyer. She’s very very unlikely to get anywhere at this stage.

Best bet is probably to sell as much of the structure as possible, or to find some other piece of land to move it to.

Thanks again for all the responses.

I agree, best outcome she can realistically hope for will be simply gaining more time from the council in order to find somewhere new to put the house or find alternative.

But thanks anyway for all the input.

I can't believe that someone in this country thought they'd just knock-up a log cabin to live in on a mates bit of land & not think that it'd need all the proper permissions. A very naive thing to do. I'm not surprised they're being told to demolish. A painful lesson.

www.fbcmb.co.uk/why-choose-us/news/our-news/article/5191/hay-bale-house-saga-is-a-warning-to-developers-and-landowners

Reminded me of this case.

I'm sure there was one in Scotland recently as well.

How did she manage to pay council tax on a log cabin that hadn't had planning permission?

www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/perth-kinross/623036/latest-twist-in-illegal-shed-house-debacle/?sso-c=MC4zOTc1NzEwMCAxNTI0NTE0MTM4 This is the one in Scotland I was thinking of. It's saying the family living there might not have known there was no PP so it does happen

It is a bit weird that she managed to pay council tax on the property and then suddenly the council realise that this was built without planning. How did the property get set up by the VOA/council?

Has she sought professional advice?

^

what @SpottyGreenFrog said.

tree
Pretty easily just go to the council tax part of the council. It's not linked , she might have got BC sign off without PP.

If she built it without planning permission she might find it useful to employ a planning consultant to see if she could get retrospective planning permission but it's going to be pricey.

If she's in England, I think there's a rule that if a residential building is in place for more than four years it automatically is granted that permission (or at least, the council can't force demolition because of a lack of permission) but she'll still have to ensure it corresponds to building regs.

onthe rise
That's not the case there is no automatic rule. Councils can force demolish of a building.

The local planning authority need to have served an enforcement notice within 4 years of the property being completed providing the property was not physically disguised or concealed. Check the dates carefully. If they did not serve the notice as stated then she should seek specialist advice from a planning solicitor or consultant. Even if the notice was correctly served she has the right of appeal to the SOS. She should appeal. Presumably she applied for retrospective pp?