Why can't you just build on your own land? (e.g.Rural plots)

[Liquidream]

Hi all,

Would someone please mind explaining to me why it is that you have to go through planning permission in order to build a house on a parcel of land that you OWN?

I can just about understand local authorities wanting to restrict/govern new builds in city/neighbourhood areas, by ensuring that houses "fit in" with the existing property designs, etc. Otherwise, I can see people getting upset/devaluing other properties.

But if you buy a small parcel of land in the country, where there could potentially be no neighbours for miles, why can't you just build whatever you want? (within reason/taste/regulations, of course - I understand we can't just let everyone build ANYTHING anywhere, but...)

Particularly if the land has trees or woods where (potentially) nobody else would possibly even SEE your property.

My wife and I are looking into the prospect of self-building, but (and no offence intended to anyone) I don't want a boring "2-up 2-down" regular house to spend our days in. We want to build a lodge/timber frame house with lots of character (ideally in the Hampshire area).

However, my fear is that even if we own the land outright, most authorities may reject our plans just because we want to do something "different". Either that, or you need to be super-rich (which we certainly are not) in order to get around things another way.

I really hope that I'm way off base here, but this just seems to be the impression I'm getting.

Would really appreciate any advice/guidance that anyone may have on the subject.

Many thanks in advance!

 

[tony1851]

Hi all,

Would someone please mind explaining to me why it is that you have to go through planning permission in order to build a house on a parcel of land that you OWN?

Because we live in a semi-communist state, where an army of local government officials, of no useful abilities whatsoever, get paid wages (de-facto 'unemployment benefit') to sit on their arSe$ all day deciding how to stop as much development as possible.

Mark my words: one day we will need planning permission to go to the toilet.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But if you buy a small parcel of land in the country, where there could potentially be no neighbours for miles, why can't you just build whatever you want? (within reason/taste/regulations, of course - I understand we can't just let everyone build ANYTHING anywhere, but...)

You've answered your own question there by admitting that some kind of control (however light) has to be exercised.

However, my fear is that even if we own the land outright, most authorities may reject our plans just because we want to do something "different".

You won't know until you ask. Seem to see quite a lot of innovative buildings on Grand Designs.

Do you have the land already, land where it's permissible to build a house in the first place?

 

[Liquidream]

You've answered your own question there by admitting that some kind of control (however light) has to be exercised.

Rats! I've already been brainwashed!

You won't know until you ask. Seem to see quite a lot of innovative buildings on Grand Designs.

Do you have the land already, land where it's permissible to build a house in the first place?

No, I haven't purchased the land yet. I want to get all the facts together first, then (if it's worth it) purchase the right piece of land that will allow us to do what we want.

I guess my original post was more of a rant about "why", as it clearly seems to be the case that you DO need planning permission. Whether it's from buying land with existing/non-expired PP already on it, or trying to obtain it before you purchase the land.

(P.S. - Thanks for the encouragement about the Grand Designs!)

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Either that, or you need to be super-rich (which we certainly are not) in order to get around things another way.

I think you will need to be what most people would call pretty rich if you're to buy a piece of land in Hampshire, designated for residential use, which is large enough for a house not to be seen from beyond its boundary.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Because we live in a semi-communist state

Don't be ridiculous.

 

[Liquidream]

I think you will need to be what most people would call pretty rich if you're to buy a piece of land in Hampshire, designated for residential use, which is large enough for a house not to be seen from beyond its boundary.

Well, that was just part of my "rant" - wondering IF we had such a piece of land, then WHY would we need PP - if nobody could see our house anyway!

In reality, we're probably happy to settle for whatever land (however close to other properties) that we would be allowed to build our cabin/lodge on... in Hampshire.

*One Moon on a stick please!*

 

[nickjb]

If no one can see it then you don't need planning permission. You just need no one to see it for four years.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That's been tried.

And IIRC the judge ruled that as the building was deliberately concealed in order to build it without PP and not be detected for 4 years then it had to be demolished.

 

[tony1851]

Because we live in a semi-communist state

Don't be ridiculous.

Just after the War, there was a proposal to nationalize all land, with minimal compensation, and have all development directed by the State.

Instead, the T&CP Act said we can still own the land (and of course all the responsibilities that go with it), but we can't do anything with it unless some functionary allows us to.

Hence my comment.

Aside from this and in practical terms, those of us who deal with LPAs on a daily basis understand how anti-development they can be. They like to be in a position of power, whereby they can dictate to someone what they can and can't do with their own property.

 

[Liquidream]

Thanks everyone for your comments.

I didn't really expect to get any other answer than "that's how it is, tough!".

Time to start looking into plots and planning permission...

 

[geraldthehamster]

Hi all,

Would someone please mind explaining to me why it is that you have to go through planning permission in order to build a house on a parcel of land that you OWN?

Because you could build what you wanted, then sell it, then someone else could buy land nearby, and do the same, then a third person could fill in the gaps and before you know it you'd have created a town.

Having said that, there are planning criteria for allowing isolated dwellings in open countryside, and round my way one of those is that the building should be "of architectural merit". So have a look at your local planning guidance and see if you have anything similar. Bearing in mind that a local council's idea of "architectural merit" is probably going to be "anything with slanted roofs and lots of cedar and glass like they've seen on the telly".

Cheers
Richard

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Just after the War, there was a proposal to nationalize all land, with minimal compensation, and have all development directed by the State.

That was a proposal - it didn't happen. We do not live in a "semi-communist state"

But given the incredible ****-ups and profiteering that have occurred in privatised rail, water, electricity etc companies, I'd raise a cheer if they were to be renationalised with minimal compensation.

Instead, the T&CP Act said we can still own the land (and of course all the responsibilities that go with it), but we can't do anything with it unless some functionary allows us to.

Have you seen what some parts of the world look like where people are allowed to build what they like, where they like?

[EDIT]Spleling misteak corretced[/EDIT]

 

[jeds]

It's a catch 22. Most people like the idea of freedom to do what they want, build what they like, where they like, but virtually nobody wants the countryside littered with horrible little shacks and shanty towns.

 

[cjard]

That's been tried.

And IIRC the judge ruled that as the building was deliberately concealed in order to build it without PP and not be detected for 4 years then it had to be demolished.

No, you misunderstood the ruling. The judge held that the moment the build was complete was when the hay bales were taken down, not when the last brick was laid and the family moved in. The guy was thus probably less than a day into his 4 year clock before someone complained. Odd isn't it, that people will put up with a stack of rotting hay, covered in blue tarp and mouldering tyres for years without raising a fuss, yet the moment it's cleared and a really quite lovely building revealed instead, someone complains.

I can picture the sort of person who'd report it now; probably the same sort of person who takes to internet forums to berate others at length over legal minutiae