Unauthorised Use - Does 7 year rule apply

B

Brianios

Registered User
Messages
30
Hi,

Hoping for some opinion on this one.

Can anyone give their opinion on whether the 7 year planning rule applies to "unauthorized use" equally as it does to "unauthorized development"?

The owners of a neighbouring house (I won't call them neighbours as nobody lives in the house) use it solely to run a business. They do not have planning for this but have been running it for 20+ years.

If it was an unauthorized extension of some sort that was there 20+ years then it would be statute barred I am pretty sure. Can the same be said of unauthorized use though? Could planning enforcement conceivably take action if asked?

Thanks
 
Ah yes 'use' and 'development'

Having been down this road with my council, my understanding is this.

There is no 7 year planning rule. There may some legal weakness where a matter has been ongoing for a long period. There certainly is a policy in many councils to not pursue a matter that is more than a certain age.

There would appear to be a difference between "use" and "development" although my correspondence from the council confuses the two, even in a letter trying to draw a distinction.

Councils are slow to act where something is long established, they are also slow to act where a business is providing employment. If your 'neighbours' have been doing something for 20 years, the council would look foolish trying to say it was in breach of planning at this point.
 
The owner - occupier will have difficulty selling Fbd property if they try to assert the new use - business. So essentially if they stay as they are or don’t further develop at the property (something that works require them to apply for permission) then they can go on as they are ..,
 
Thanks folks. Sorry to hear that but appreciate the responses.

The business is a creche of all things. It amazes me that someone can get a license/approval to run a creche without proper planning permission to do so. Relying on this 7 year rule/myth in this instance seems absolutely outrageous.
 
Take a read of this, in particcular:

Beware section 157(4)(b) of the 2000 Act which provides that irrespective of the time that has elapsed, enforcement action can still be taken where a person has failed to satisfy a planning condition concerning the use of land.
Click to expand...
 
Excellent link Leo, shows that there is a legal basis to the 7 year rule, and explains the origin of the confusion between use and development
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leo
I would think that a creche with 20 years use would be granted retention very quickly, almost automatically. If there are traffic safety issues (dropping off of kids causing issues) there may be some chance. Is it causing you much hassle? Presumably not at the moment, with a likely big increase in people working from home after the pandemic ends perhaps the "problem" will solve itself?
 
Actually a creche is unlikely to be a difficult neighbour. Of course the coming and going in a residential neighbourhood may be a nuisance, but the place is unlikely to be badly kept and its likely to be unused at night.

Believe me unneighbourly behaviour at night is far worse than during the day. Barking dogs come to mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top