Planning tussle over future of wooden home near Sheriff Hutton

Gazette & Herald: Retrospective planning permission has been sought for this two-bedroom cabin home on land near Sheriff Hutton Retrospective planning permission has been sought for this two-bedroom cabin home on land near Sheriff Hutton

PLANNERS have to decide whether to allow a timber cabin home in a field north of York – after it has already been built.

Lena Banks has just applied to Ryedale District Council for retrospective planning permission for three years for the two-bedroom property on land near Sheriff Hutton.

Speaking on her behalf, town planning consultant Marc Willis said she was setting up a business breeding falabellas – miniature horses – there and it was essential for her to be able to live on site to deal with foaling and also for security reasons, because they were very valuable creatures.

He said that to receive planning permission, she needed to establish her home was needed for a viable agricultural business, but she could not set up the business without already living on site. This explained why she had built the home and then applied for permission afterwards.

But neighbour Marcus Oxendale has said the property was in a field in the green belt and should be refused permission.

He also said it was vital local authorities did not look more favourably on a retrospective application than a normal one, simply because it might cost money to take enforcement action to get the development removed.

Julie Hepworth, chairwoman of the Ryedale branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), said she was concerned that a “planning free-for-all” could develop if homes were built first and then planning consent sought afterwards, and added the CPRE was opposed to developments which could blight the countryside.

Gary Housden, Ryedale council’s head of planning and housing, said the authority had launched an investigation after receiving a complaint of an unauthorised development.

He said a retrospective application had subsequently been submitted, which would be considered on its planning merits in the same way as any other application. He stressed that it would not be treated any more or less favourably than a normal application just because it was retrospective.

He said building without permission was not that unusual and was not a criminal offence but, if permission was refused, enforcement action would be recommended for the removal of the unauthorised development.

The costs of this removal would ultimately be borne by the applicant, he added.

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:06am Sat 11 Jan 14

smudge2 says...

This has been done on numerous occassions by people building claiming agricultural tenency and after a few years getting this overturned and thus making the property legal and worth a large amount of money.It is a loophole that needs closing as agricultural tendency was originally granted for farm workers houses . Im afraid building a property this size to look after a few horses does not qualify and the permission should be refused.Also the arrogance of people to build without planning permission anywhere on any site is quite frankly amazing. Marcus Oxendale quite right to object.
This has been done on numerous occassions by people building claiming agricultural tenency and after a few years getting this overturned and thus making the property legal and worth a large amount of money.It is a loophole that needs closing as agricultural tendency was originally granted for farm workers houses . Im afraid building a property this size to look after a few horses does not qualify and the permission should be refused.Also the arrogance of people to build without planning permission anywhere on any site is quite frankly amazing. Marcus Oxendale quite right to object. smudge2

9:41am Sat 11 Jan 14

Dave Ruddock says...

dare we ask , why build then seek planning, ermmm, "see leasons learned" charged astrinomical fees, property tax, highest water electric gas changes and say "Its a wild esstimate for future useage, in respent of asking planning permission after the event. or like most other councils , knock in down and then tell them to ast BEFORE not after.......
dare we ask , why build then seek planning, ermmm, "see leasons learned" charged astrinomical fees, property tax, highest water electric gas changes and say "Its a wild esstimate for future useage, in respent of asking planning permission after the event. or like most other councils , knock in down and then tell them to ast BEFORE not after....... Dave Ruddock

11:02am Sat 11 Jan 14

JHardacre says...

Presumably they had Building Consent (as ALL new builds must). Presumably this was obtained from the same Local Authority that should have given Planning consent.
May be simplistic but why can't the Building Consent staff liaise with the Planning consent staff.

Only in local government...
Presumably they had Building Consent (as ALL new builds must). Presumably this was obtained from the same Local Authority that should have given Planning consent. May be simplistic but why can't the Building Consent staff liaise with the Planning consent staff. Only in local government... JHardacre

11:44am Sat 11 Jan 14

micky moodys hat says...

JHardacre wrote:
Presumably they had Building Consent (as ALL new builds must). Presumably this was obtained from the same Local Authority that should have given Planning consent.
May be simplistic but why can't the Building Consent staff liaise with the Planning consent staff.

Only in local government...
Why would she have that????? All new builds, particularly ones in the green belt must have planning permission and as we have seen she clearly hasn't got that. It won't have been particularly hard to build either......A big concrete base abd then pop up the timber frame - job done
[quote][p][bold]JHardacre[/bold] wrote: Presumably they had Building Consent (as ALL new builds must). Presumably this was obtained from the same Local Authority that should have given Planning consent. May be simplistic but why can't the Building Consent staff liaise with the Planning consent staff. Only in local government...[/p][/quote]Why would she have that????? All new builds, particularly ones in the green belt must have planning permission and as we have seen she clearly hasn't got that. It won't have been particularly hard to build either......A big concrete base abd then pop up the timber frame - job done micky moodys hat

4:30pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Terry3 says...

Green belt?? what green belt? They can put wind farms all over the beauty spots on England, and factories and mass builders of housing get past the law and build factories and housing estates wherever they decide but this lady cannot put up a simple neat little cottage and run a business on her land?.. Take a look at what's left of your country, and then stop acting like a bunch of bureaucrats you posters.
Green belt?? what green belt? They can put wind farms all over the beauty spots on England, and factories and mass builders of housing get past the law and build factories and housing estates wherever they decide but this lady cannot put up a simple neat little cottage and run a business on her land?.. Take a look at what's left of your country, and then stop acting like a bunch of bureaucrats you posters. Terry3

5:38pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Oyy you says...

Terry3 wrote:
Green belt?? what green belt? They can put wind farms all over the beauty spots on England, and factories and mass builders of housing get past the law and build factories and housing estates wherever they decide but this lady cannot put up a simple neat little cottage and run a business on her land?.. Take a look at what's left of your country, and then stop acting like a bunch of bureaucrats you posters.
Well said, nosey busy bodies.......
[quote][p][bold]Terry3[/bold] wrote: Green belt?? what green belt? They can put wind farms all over the beauty spots on England, and factories and mass builders of housing get past the law and build factories and housing estates wherever they decide but this lady cannot put up a simple neat little cottage and run a business on her land?.. Take a look at what's left of your country, and then stop acting like a bunch of bureaucrats you posters.[/p][/quote]Well said, nosey busy bodies....... Oyy you

7:32pm Sat 11 Jan 14

maybejustmaybe says...

Refuse permission and have it knocked down. Then go through the proper channels to rebuild it.
Refuse permission and have it knocked down. Then go through the proper channels to rebuild it. maybejustmaybe

8:10pm Sat 11 Jan 14

muckybutt says...

whats wrong with her using a static caravan for starters, then apply for permission as most folk with half a brain would have done ?

I hope the half wit gets refused to be honest
whats wrong with her using a static caravan for starters, then apply for permission as most folk with half a brain would have done ? I hope the half wit gets refused to be honest muckybutt

9:40pm Sat 11 Jan 14

baileyuk says...

cant see a problem with it,,, it just seems like sour grapes that she may have got away with it and her neighbour is jealous?
cant see a problem with it,,, it just seems like sour grapes that she may have got away with it and her neighbour is jealous? baileyuk

9:53am Sun 12 Jan 14

browbeaten says...

i would have thought that the council would have spotted this ages ago but there again we are talking ryedale so probably not. If it comes to a vote by the laughable planning committee lets hope the turn up, and press the right button when it comes to a vote !
i would have thought that the council would have spotted this ages ago but there again we are talking ryedale so probably not. If it comes to a vote by the laughable planning committee lets hope the turn up, and press the right button when it comes to a vote ! browbeaten

2:44pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Dr Brian says...

Yes let's put some body out of business because she failed to follow red tape maybe her neighbour will be happy then. I hope the council grant her planning permission 2 fingers to her neighbour.
Yes let's put some body out of business because she failed to follow red tape maybe her neighbour will be happy then. I hope the council grant her planning permission 2 fingers to her neighbour. Dr Brian

4:49pm Sun 12 Jan 14

bolero says...

smudge2 wrote:
This has been done on numerous occassions by people building claiming agricultural tenency and after a few years getting this overturned and thus making the property legal and worth a large amount of money.It is a loophole that needs closing as agricultural tendency was originally granted for farm workers houses . Im afraid building a property this size to look after a few horses does not qualify and the permission should be refused.Also the arrogance of people to build without planning permission anywhere on any site is quite frankly amazing. Marcus Oxendale quite right to object.
Exactly right. This is what happened at Cliftongate business park (so-called) where the council were put in a position where they found it impossible to refuse planning permission because of what the owners had manipulated over the years. Ryedale are right and should not allow themselves to be put in this position. Planning laws apply to all.
[quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: This has been done on numerous occassions by people building claiming agricultural tenency and after a few years getting this overturned and thus making the property legal and worth a large amount of money.It is a loophole that needs closing as agricultural tendency was originally granted for farm workers houses . Im afraid building a property this size to look after a few horses does not qualify and the permission should be refused.Also the arrogance of people to build without planning permission anywhere on any site is quite frankly amazing. Marcus Oxendale quite right to object.[/p][/quote]Exactly right. This is what happened at Cliftongate business park (so-called) where the council were put in a position where they found it impossible to refuse planning permission because of what the owners had manipulated over the years. Ryedale are right and should not allow themselves to be put in this position. Planning laws apply to all. bolero

4:17am Mon 13 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

Can't see a problem with it, it is a single story building - most likely less than 3m off ground level, and is built of wood. I've seen people's shed bigger than that house, and because it's wood-built and less than 3m tall, the shed is classed under "permitted development".

Perhaps if consent is approved, then a legal clause can be attached to it by the authority that the building can only stay if the owner dwells in it to 'work the land' (this includes horse breeding) - a bit like these little woodland cabins in the Lake District or Northumbria.
Can't see a problem with it, it is a single story building - most likely less than 3m off ground level, and is built of wood. I've seen people's shed bigger than that house, and because it's wood-built and less than 3m tall, the shed is classed under "permitted development". Perhaps if consent is approved, then a legal clause can be attached to it by the authority that the building can only stay if the owner dwells in it to 'work the land' (this includes horse breeding) - a bit like these little woodland cabins in the Lake District or Northumbria. Magicman!

7:44am Mon 13 Jan 14

again says...

What's the betting it's a housing estate inside ten years!
What's the betting it's a housing estate inside ten years! again

11:01am Mon 13 Jan 14

Roger S says...

WIth a concrete base and no land attached I doubt it is permitted development. It was clearly designed to look like a stable/ barn so that no-one might notice. A caravan may have worked.

I expect planning to become a big area of debate soon. 25 years ago two thirds of houses were small scale or self built. At the moment less than 30% of new ones are.

There is a lot of machismo and envy at the councils and among neighbours, and building rafts of legislation and research for local plans, but all this does is favour the bullying mega rich who go about carving up land because they can afford to build affordable - giving free houses to the government to give an excuse to give to the rich who probably arrange the deals at dinner parties. This may help the very poorest until they get trapped in a little house with no job, or turn them into scroungers, but it definitely destroys local building trades and wealth creation for ordinary folk. The silent majority who can't afford a team of lawyers on the planning pulse are being gleefully sent into a race to the bottom of a polarised society. We all know it's the people in the middle who tend to be the most decent e.g. with a bit of a land and a small business they've worked hard for but not psychotically worked 7 days a week in dodging tax, etc. to become millionaires.

The councils also like big estates cos it gives them funds to wield more power, be better paid and work less as they deal with fewer planning applications and can negotiate a juicy s106 or similar. They achieve this partly by drawing tight lines round existing villages then saying - how can you possibly build outside the limits of where we have already built?

Less than 10% of land in the UK is built on.
WIth a concrete base and no land attached I doubt it is permitted development. It was clearly designed to look like a stable/ barn so that no-one might notice. A caravan may have worked. I expect planning to become a big area of debate soon. 25 years ago two thirds of houses were small scale or self built. At the moment less than 30% of new ones are. There is a lot of machismo and envy at the councils and among neighbours, and building rafts of legislation and research for local plans, but all this does is favour the bullying mega rich who go about carving up land because they can afford to build affordable - giving free houses to the government to give an excuse to give to the rich who probably arrange the deals at dinner parties. This may help the very poorest until they get trapped in a little house with no job, or turn them into scroungers, but it definitely destroys local building trades and wealth creation for ordinary folk. The silent majority who can't afford a team of lawyers on the planning pulse are being gleefully sent into a race to the bottom of a polarised society. We all know it's the people in the middle who tend to be the most decent e.g. with a bit of a land and a small business they've worked hard for but not psychotically worked 7 days a week in dodging tax, etc. to become millionaires. The councils also like big estates cos it gives them funds to wield more power, be better paid and work less as they deal with fewer planning applications and can negotiate a juicy s106 or similar. They achieve this partly by drawing tight lines round existing villages then saying - how can you possibly build outside the limits of where we have already built? Less than 10% of land in the UK is built on. Roger S

11:01am Mon 13 Jan 14

Roger S says...

meant to say no house attached
meant to say no house attached Roger S

11:09am Mon 13 Jan 14

Roger S says...

I want to add that 90% of affordable housing in Ryedale is designed for rent under the new plan so not doing a huge amount to boost home ownership. Seems more like a way of collecting tax without making an investment. As if 40-50% tax on builders profits isn't enough.
I want to add that 90% of affordable housing in Ryedale is designed for rent under the new plan so not doing a huge amount to boost home ownership. Seems more like a way of collecting tax without making an investment. As if 40-50% tax on builders profits isn't enough. Roger S

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree