BalancedBear Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Living in a cow shed http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-33392688.html Whilst I'm no fan of some of the Tory policies, I'm not sure that this has anything to do with the Tories? House prices and immigration increased more under Labour than anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northerner Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 The only possible value could be its proximity to the railway but I don't even think March is on a main line to anywhere. It's strange to think that old railway carriages were, in the 1920s, the absolute lowest form of accommodation that were lived in by semi-tramps. There was a national scandal that returning war heroes had to live in them. But as far as I know, they lived in them rent free, they didn't have to pay £100k for them. ... or £180K? http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-47966303.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiremola Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 There is something of value there, if they do demolish it. It is very likely one of the steam preservation societies would love to buy the old railway carriage and restore it. This recently happened at the Bluebell railway, with a bungalow that was composed of two old carriages. A friend of mine, Kathryn Ferry, was in the course of writing a book on the history of the bungalow, [i recommend it] and I showed her the pictures on their website of the demolition of the building, and the retrieval of the rolling stock. She was saddened by the loss of the picturesque bungalow and did not seem to share the joy of the railway enthusiasts. Unlike this one, it was rather pretty. I had seen it from the point of view of those ruthless volunteers, devoted single-mindedly to the restoration of past engineering wonders... It could be the subject of a philosophical exercise about identity - Was it a useful bungalow built from two redundant railway carriages, or was it two historic railway carriages sadly relegated to composing a bungalow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byron Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Why say this is what the Tories have reduced etc. etc. Typical, myopic, left wing drivel. The housing crisis lies firmly at the door of Labour, despite their many attempts to shift the blame. First they blamed the Americans, then they blamed the Bankers, then they blamed the Tories Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samboy Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Whilst I'm no fan of some of the Tory policies, I'm not sure that this has anything to do with the Tories? House prices and immigration increased more under Labour than anyone else. They've had 5 years and have made it worse, i actually long for a Labour govt, they weren't half as creative as this lot at propping up the property market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samboy Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Why say this is what the Tories have reduced etc. etc. Typical, myopic, left wing drivel. The housing crisis lies firmly at the door of Labour, despite their many attempts to shift the blame. First they blamed the Americans, then they blamed the Bankers, then they blamed the Tories The people who voted Tory at the last election blame the Tories. Whilst no one is disputing how incompetent Labour were and will be, the Tory party should take all the blame for the current situation. I truly hate Dave, Gidiot and the gang with a passion, i will smile when tragedy comes to them and i never used to think like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Well :( Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Gordon Brown started the rot. He was the one who raided the pensions causing any boomer to realise that pensions were bad and investing in property would be safer. The halfwit Brown did not foresee the end result of his disastrous policy, the Tories were useless in opposition. Labour then had the open door immigration policy as it is well known that "all immigrants vote Labour". This gave rise to even more pressure on the housing market. Who is responsible for the ludicrous housing benefit policy? Daft ever increasing rents paid by you and I to private landlords, that no working person could afford? That would be Labour again. Look at all the beds-in-sheds in west London, eg Hounslow these have been going on for years as they are owned by immigrants including councillors,planning has not been enforced. Yes the Tories are sh1t but Labour are far sh1ttier! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 They've had 5 years and have made it worse, i actually long for a Labour govt, they weren't half as creative as this lot at propping up the property market. They didnt have to be, the banks were doing it for them! Having met a couple of Labour MPs, I could actually believe they didnt 'intentionally' inflate property prices...they really are that dumb, and simply say 'its the market' Tories OTOH see affordable housing as a problem for policy to take care of and prevent. Doesnt really matter i suppose. Labour are too stupid to actually find a solution, tories too mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonguest Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 >[The barn] has been internally converted into a dwelling and has been lived in for a number of years. However, there is no planning permission in place and the local authority have said they will not consider a change of use to residential. If it has been used as a dwelling for four years then they can get a Lawful Development Certificate, no planning permission required. You go through the council legal department rather than the planning department. Resident 1 Council 0 That's news to me - and fascinating for the 'potential' applicable to many 'dwellings' with ordinarily assumed no chance of getting planning permission and not just this one here. IF this is indeed the case then that, perhaps, reflects the seemingly daft expected/guide price? As it suggests that prospective buyers will be buying specifically with the intention of pursuing its habitable aspects/uses and not for some other non-residential use. Can you provide a link/further info on this intriguing 'route' to getting a building that is not approved for habitation into one that does become approved for use as a dwelling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I know someone who sold a 7 year old mobile home (a big static) for more than he paid for it new, to a local farmer who wanted to drag it into one of his barns to prove somebody had been living inside the barn, inside the mobile caravan. He got his planning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonguest Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 The people who voted Tory at the last election blame the Tories. Whilst no one is disputing how incompetent Labour were and will be, the Tory party should take all the blame for the current situation. I truly hate Dave, Gidiot and the gang with a passion, i will smile when tragedy comes to them and i never used to think like that. I will smile when tragedy comes to ALL of them regardless of rosette colour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonguest Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 They didnt have to be, the banks were doing it for them! Having met a couple of Labour MPs, I could actually believe they didnt 'intentionally' inflate property prices...they really are that dumb, and simply say 'its the market' Tories OTOH see affordable housing as a problem for policy to take care of and prevent. Doesnt really matter i suppose. Labour are too stupid to actually find a solution, tories too mean. I second that. That is my experience and personal observation of mixing with and meeting various politicos (including some MPs). There are, no doubt, a handful of MPs on both sides of the commons who it could be argued have voted on policies because, subconsciously at least, they had various 'vested interests' in seeing property prices rise or stay high. The vast majority though are just plain economically dumb unthinking sheep more concerned, for their careers, that they be seen to stay 'on message' with whatever the official party line of the day is. Most have little grasp or understanding of complex socio-economic issues AND, more importantly in my opinion, a profound lack of intellectual ability (or willingness) to question policy proposals and, even briefly, think things through and and ask any 'what if' questions, etc. to ascertain what the possible range of consequences might be. An example of what I mean by this is, to use another very current topical issue, the ongoing bandwagon for ever greater and greater surveillance and monitoring laws of everyday personal activities. I will bet that not one of them has sat down quietly and tried to think through just how different, for the worse, peoples lives would be and the implications on ordinary innocuous taken for granted activities that will affect them too - and that the quality of life will be on balance arguably worse. The same applies to HPI. Not one of these dumb MPs ever probably stopped to to contemplate the long term wider implications of having sustained HPI at rates significantly greater than wage inflation. Time flies past. Before they know it they blink and look around bewildered at the growing clamour from the electorate for affordable housing - and so in their desperation end up implementing quick fix solutions that in reality do nothing to fix the underlying problem and even likely make it worse. Again without thinking the policies through and so once again perpetuating the cycle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GloomMonger Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Here is the back story http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/out_you_go_norfolk_couple_must_rip_apart_dream_home_in_a_pig_barn_1_3924682 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Limon Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Here is the back story http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/out_you_go_norfolk_couple_must_rip_apart_dream_home_in_a_pig_barn_1_3924682 The couple, who did not wish to be named, moved into the barn in 2008 but did not apply for planning permission to turn it into a home. After the Broads Authority became aware of the situation, they asked the couple to remove the kitchens and bathrooms they had installed and move out. Desperate to stay in a home they adored, the couple appealed the decision and took the case to a public inquiry, although they were unable to prove to the planning inspector that they had been living there for more than four years. So they'd have gotten away with it if they'd documented and dated the conversion process? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venger Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 The same applies to HPI. Not one of these dumb MPs ever probably stopped to to contemplate the long term wider implications of having sustained HPI at rates significantly greater than wage inflation. Time flies past. Before they know it they blink and look around bewildered at the growing clamour from the electorate for affordable housing - and so in their desperation end up implementing quick fix solutions that in reality do nothing to fix the underlying problem and even likely make it worse. Again without thinking the policies through and so once again perpetuating the cycle. Too forgiving. That's part of what they are paid to do. Run the country sensibly and be sensible with money. Clamour for affordable housing? Maybe from softies at Priced Out. Your friendly authorities not wanting to give away their HPI, else they would be calling for HPC. Calls for hard correction for me, and capitalism.. (maybe coming when the banks get sorted out.) Greed and complacency and the comfort and confidence that comes with totally ballooned equity wealth. It can only be solved by a major HPC in prime markets. Professionals in low-mid-high prime markets... (US below)... renting and waiting. At least fewer US prime renters are not going to succumb to the excuses "no one knows anything, no one responsible for their own decisions, they couldn't have seen it coming, compounded hpi 10-25% year on year is perfectly reasonable cause population growth, protect the homeowner victims" in the next HPC. Read a good article the other evening how a growing population in prime Western locations, hasn't stopped HPC in those cities in the past. NihilistZerOJanuary 20, 2015 at 9:52 am The S&L’s didn’t won the FED. The Big 4 Banks ARE the FED! That’s why the crash was halted. But now the inventory is in the hands of private equity. No parachute for Bust 2.0. The FED NEEDS a RE bust anyway as it’s the quickest way to put disposable income in consumer hands. We have world wide demand side weakness that can only be solved by an increase in consumer spending. That can’t happen while RE is draining monthly budgets. You’re right to point to the S&L bust. The consumer prosperity that followed is hopefully what the current bust will lead to. Calgirl January 20, 2015 at 3:58 pm Ever wonder if that was the govt’s plan? To shift the risk to private holdings vs. banks? Me personally – I will continue to rent my gorgeous 3 bed house at 40% under what it would cost me to buy it – and happily wait to purchase a similar home from a desperate specuvestor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northerner Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 So they'd have gotten away with it if they'd documented and dated the conversion process? Not according to this: A couple who secretly converted a crumbling pigsty into a four-bedroom home have been ordered to move out after losing a battle against planning chiefs. In a bid to outwit planners the unnamed owner's made sure the outhouse looked like any other farm building, made of grey concrete blocks with big sliding doors and no windows. But inside it had four bedrooms, a kitchen, living room and bathroom facilities and flourescent lighting and radiators. Planners say the occupants 'deliberately concealed' the property and the only clues to its use were a letterbox on an entrance gate and a satellite dish on a wall away from the road. The owners had previously lived in the adjacent farm which they sold in 2008 and then bought the pigsty and other agricultural buildings. The 3,293sq/ft shed, named Heathacre Barns, stands in the middle of the Norfolk Broads surrounded by farmland and waterways. The local Broads Authority said the owners failed to get any planning permission to covert it into a house. They became locked in a dispute with the local authority after they began to investigating in November 2012, when they were refused access to the site Four months later the council ordered the owners to get out and return it to its former use. A last ditch attempt to overturn the council's decision failed and they have been told they must move out this weekend. The couple had tried to claim to the government's planning inspector they had obtained planning permission after living in the building for more than four years. However, the rule only applies when concealment is not used. As a result they have put the pigsty up for auction with a guide price of just £20,000 - and a warning that it cannot be used for residential purposes. They will have to strip out all the furniture and fittings and return the barn to its original state. A report by a council planning officer said: 'It should be noted that it is considered that there has also been a deliberate attempt at concealment of this development.' 'They concealed it, so even if they lived there for 20 years you couldn't then get any retrospective permission or anything like that. 'I think they have had held their hands up and admitted they are at fault. 'They have owned it for years because they used to live in the house next door before they bought the barn. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2919990/Couple-turned-outhouse-home-ordered-didn-t-permission.html#ixzz3PTQNu3jo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonguest Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Too forgiving. That's part of what they are paid to do. Run the country sensibly and be sensible with money. Clamour for affordable housing? Maybe from softies at Priced Out. Your friendly authorities not wanting to give away their HPI, else they would be calling for HPC. Calls for hard correction for me, and capitalism.. (maybe coming when the banks get sorted out.) Greed and complacency and the comfort and confidence that comes with totally ballooned equity wealth. It can only be solved by a major HPC in prime markets. Professionals in low-mid-high prime markets... (US below)... renting and waiting. At least fewer US prime renters are not going to succumb to the excuses "no one knows anything, no one responsible for their own decisions, they couldn't have seen it coming, compounded hpi 10-25% year on year is perfectly reasonable cause population growth, protect the homeowner victims" in the next HPC. Read a good article the other evening how a growing population in prime Western locations, hasn't stopped HPC in those cities in the past. Who said anything about me being 'forgiving'. I was merely agreeing with the explanation for why we are in the mess we are, i.e cos our modern class of MPs are largely dozy opportunistic b*stards with IQs smaller than a pile of bricks. I do not forgive them at all for the mess we are in. I positively loathe the majority of them and am completely unashamed to state that there is a long list of them that I genuinely 100% would not stop to even p*ss on if they burst into flames! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonguest Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I do not think MPs are stupid, they are corrupt. It does not take a massive IQ to realise that emergency interest rates of 0.5%, wages (only recently) rising at 1.7% and property prices rising year on year every year through the recession by 10% should set alarm bells ringing. A large % of ALL party MPs have BTL. They are all the same ... even the so-called 'good' ones such as Tony Benn are just tax dodging charlatans. Sorry, but have to disagree. Undoubtedly some are genuinely corrupt in the true sense but most are probably decent people. BUT, in my experience of having a met a fair few (of all colours) most really are of seriously inadequate intellectual capacity for the nature of the job they expected to do and, as said, show a profound lack of ability to think independently and 'put two and two together'. That when combined with the modern ruthlessly businesslike well oiled publicity machine that political parties have become where they are expected to all be 'on message' makes for a toxic combination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byron Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I find that most of them are very good indeed at public speaking. That is all that they are good at. Generally, they display an appalling lack of sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoWolves Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 They've had 5 years and have made it worse, i actually long for a Labour govt, they weren't half as creative as this lot at propping up the property market. Yep, the worst financial crisis in 300 years is not enough for some - bring it on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeryMeanReversion Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 That's news to me - and fascinating for the 'potential' applicable to many 'dwellings' with ordinarily assumed no chance of getting planning permission and not just this one here. IF this is indeed the case then that, perhaps, reflects the seemingly daft expected/guide price? As it suggests that prospective buyers will be buying specifically with the intention of pursuing its habitable aspects/uses and not for some other non-residential use. Can you provide a link/further info on this intriguing 'route' to getting a building that is not approved for habitation into one that does become approved for use as a dwelling. I've written about it on here a few times. 1. Permitted development for a Class E outbuilding (Lawful Development Certificate) - I have done this. You need to demonstrate a credible ancillary use. No need for planning permission and neighbours cannot object. 2. Use it for the agreed purpose for "a period of time". Neighbours will get used to the building being there. 3. Use it as a dwelling for 4 years (preferably a dependent relative) 4. Get lawful development certificate for use as a dwelling See http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/4-year-rule.htmlfor some guidance. Watch out for the concealment exception. Basically, build it to look like a dwelling but genuinely use it as an outbuilding, then use it as a dwelling, then get the paperwork sorted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Sacks Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 The law changed last year. Redundant agricultural buildings can be converted to residential on notification, within a maximum footprint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonguest Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I've written about it on here a few times. 1. Permitted development for a Class E outbuilding (Lawful Development Certificate) - I have done this. You need to demonstrate a credible ancillary use. No need for planning permission and neighbours cannot object. 2. Use it for the agreed purpose for "a period of time". Neighbours will get used to the building being there. 3. Use it as a dwelling for 4 years (preferably a dependent relative) 4. Get lawful development certificate for use as a dwelling See http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/4-year-rule.htmlfor some guidance. Watch out for the concealment exception. Basically, build it to look like a dwelling but genuinely use it as an outbuilding, then use it as a dwelling, then get the paperwork sorted. Fascinating. So, essentially, your assertion is that all these various cases/stories we periodically read about, of people who have been living on the sly in improvised dwellings, end in tears for them because they tried to hide the fact from the authorities. The question (and problem) I have with your approach as far as I can see it, is....... IF the building is 'ancilliary' then it implies you will already be living in a nearby/adjacent bona fide lawful dwelling? that the building you erect is somehow connected to an existing home and shares the same land plot (e.g back garden shed or outbuilding/barn on a working farm) and not a 'standalone' building in a remote field (e.g stables or a storage barn). IF NO to the above point, and the building/structure in question really is a 'standalone' and not in close/visible proximity to any other existing houses (e.g purpose erected barn in a rural field and not visible from nearby houses/passing traffic) then one stands a risk of being reported to the authorities as soon as any disgruntled/jealous/nosey/busybody neighbours get wind of the fact that it is being lived in? Or, in other words, can I really just buy, say, a 1 acre rural plot with generous tree lined road frontage and build a dwelling (i.e not a house deliberately disguised as a barn) and keep a low profile and rely on the wall of trees to keep said building/structure hidden from viw from passing traffic and nearby neighbours (i.e only way to see the building woul be from the air or deliberately tresspassing onto the land). I buy a plot and then install/erect some perfectly habitable 'compromise' dwelling, such as a log cabin type home, live in it for 4 years, register my driving licence, TV licence etc to that 'address' and, assuming not 'rumbled' beforehand, apply for the lawful certificate after 4 years? Can it really be that 'simple'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonguest Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) The law changed last year. Redundant agricultural buildings can be converted to residential on notification, within a maximum footprint. Could this explain the rise in asking prices, to seemingly silly levels, of decrepit rural standalone buildings that I see on Rightmove fairly often. When you say 'can be converted' are you implying that there is now an automatic obligation for the relevant local authority to grant permission, unless they can show good reason why not? Presumably, other than size, there will still be some basic planning laws/guidelines that will disqualify a particular redundant rural building? (e.g distance from the road, etc) How does one show that a one time bona fide rural building in regular use (e.g storage barn, cow shed, etc) is now officially no longer used? The name of the relevant law/act you are referring to? What's the maximum footprint? Edited January 22, 2015 by anonguest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.