Woman loses bid to keep house ‘hidden’ in garage (From Worcester News)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting WN NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
Woman loses bid to keep house ‘hidden’ in garage
12:10pm Wednesday 10th October 2012 in News By Neil Watts
GARAGE: As seen from the front
A PROPERTY developer who built a house in her garden near Worcester without planning permission has been given six months to turn it back into a garage.
The Planning Inspectorate dismissed the appeal from Carol Jones, of Woodend, Crown East Lane, Lower Broadheath, against the notice issued by Malvern Hills District Council after the house was built under the guise of a garage/workshop.
And in a separate ruling, Mrs Jones must pay the council’s costs.
During the inquiry earlier this summer, inspector Jane Stiles was told that Mrs Jones was granted permission to build a detached house and garage on the site in 2006.
However, inside the ‘shell’ of the garage, she created another home in which she lived for about two years, followed by two paying tenants.
She later applied to use the garage building as a home but it was refused by Malvern Hills District Council.
Mrs Stiles ruled that having been in the property development trade, Mrs Jones and her husband – a builder – should have known that planning permission was needed.
“The appellant deliberately set out to deceive the council,” said Mrs Stiles.
On the separate subject of costs, Mrs Stiles said Mrs Jones’s unreasonable behaviour had resulted in unnecessary expense.
“To my mind, the appellant has behaved unreasonably from the outset, and the respective case that she has put forward has evolved to suit her circumstances,” she said.
“After the dwelling came to the attention of the council, the appellant has tried, without success, to find a loophole in the planning system that would enable her to retain the dwelling.
“First, she fraudulently tried to argue that the building had initially been built as a garage and then subsequently converted to a dwelling.
“When that approach was unsuccessful, instead, in the current appeal, she has admitted the building had been erected as a dwelling but she has tried to argue that due to the passage of time, it was too late for the council to take enforcement action.”
Following the decision, Councillor Tony Penn, the district council’s portfolio holder for planning and housing, said: “This case should be a warning to others who believe they can obtain retrospective permission through deliberate concealment of an unauthorised development.”
Mrs Jones, who represented herself at the inquiry, now has six months to stop the building being used as a house, permanently remove all the fixtures in the two bathrooms and kitchen, and the internal partition wall preventing it from being used as a garage.
Mrs Jones was not available for comment.
Comments(29)
spider666
says...
12:35pm Wed 10 Oct 12
140354
says...
1:21pm Wed 10 Oct 12
batchelorboy
says...
1:26pm Wed 10 Oct 12
RogerLFC
says...
1:54pm Wed 10 Oct 12
EconoXL
says...
3:37pm Wed 10 Oct 12
It may be that should would have been granted permission to build a house in that location, but it maybe that the planners would object for various reasons.
MrStJohns
says...
3:41pm Wed 10 Oct 12
For instance im sure you love it, if joe bloggs next door to you applied for planning for a garage, then turned it into student accommodation and then used the above planning application as a precedent. As annoying as it may seem there is logic behind most council decisions.
Vox populi
says...
4:21pm Wed 10 Oct 12
The Doosra
says...
4:33pm Wed 10 Oct 12
jovialcommonsense
says...
4:48pm Wed 10 Oct 12
cargiftworld
says...
7:39pm Wed 10 Oct 12
batchelorboy wrote:Yes, and why can't a cat be a dog? The world is truly perplexing.
Exactly why can't the garage be a home?
mayall8808
says...
8:00pm Wed 10 Oct 12
How stupid can they be?
RobertR
says...
9:40pm Wed 10 Oct 12
perhaps they should look at M.Meikle.
RobertR
says...
9:40pm Wed 10 Oct 12
perhaps they should look at M.Meikle.
Jabbadad
says...
12:52am Thu 11 Oct 12
There was no mistake just a planned attempt.
marklewisbcfc
says...
1:16am Thu 11 Oct 12
Jabbadad
says...
8:30am Thu 11 Oct 12
Planning permission also takes into consideration the use of the building not just the shell. And if there hadn't been additional plumbing and electrics installed plus more windows changing it into living accommodation, then it would still be a garage and not a home. The same permission applies if you start to use a garage as a business premise's. And of course it is the business of those who have to abide by planning regulations.
EconoXL
says...
10:28am Thu 11 Oct 12
marklewisbcfc wrote:Because it's illegal. I don't see why you are struggling with this concept.
why should you need planning permission for something your doing inside a property, i mean it still looks the same on the outside, its not bothering anyone, spoiling anyones view or intruding on anyones property, people should just mind their own buisness, so should the council!!
pronstar
says...
12:32pm Thu 11 Oct 12
jovialcommonsense
says...
12:36pm Thu 11 Oct 12
marklewisbcfc wrote:If everyone did as they pleased the sewage system would become inadequate,as well as other utilities.
why should you need planning permission for something your doing inside a property, i mean it still looks the same on the outside, its not bothering anyone, spoiling anyones view or intruding on anyones property, people should just mind their own buisness, so should the council!!
Then we would moan about the lack of planning!
molly70
says...
7:03pm Thu 11 Oct 12
Keith B
says...
8:30pm Thu 11 Oct 12
It's out and out racism.
imustbeoldiwearacap
says...
8:22am Fri 12 Oct 12
Keith B wrote:I don't think so!
Well there's your reason for pulling it down. Nothing annoys a planner more than a member of the travelling community. They don't conform and that in planners eyes (and the majority of the public) is the worst thing of all.
It's out and out racism.
The Moan
says...
5:18pm Fri 12 Oct 12
simbastyles
says...
7:26pm Sat 13 Oct 12
imustbeoldiwearacap
says...
7:59pm Sat 13 Oct 12
simbastyles wrote:If that's the case - she was abusing the planning laws by being deceitful and the council were correct in their action!
Actually if this building has been standing 4 years the building would automatically have planning permission under UK planning law. It seems a rather petty and small minded move by the council as really all they gain by this move is a loss of revenue through council tax.
jabroner
says...
3:47pm Tue 16 Oct 12
Guy66
says...
10:37pm Tue 16 Oct 12
simbastyles wrote:What council tax - it's an undeclared building and therefore would not be registered to pay council tax. Another reason to uphold the law. Yet another tax dodging example!
Actually if this building has been standing 4 years the building would automatically have planning permission under UK planning law. It seems a rather petty and small minded move by the council as really all they gain by this move is a loss of revenue through council tax.
batchelorboy
says...
1:27pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Guy66 wrote:But there would be council tax if the building was allowed to be a 'home'.
simbastyles wrote:What council tax - it's an undeclared building and therefore would not be registered to pay council tax. Another reason to uphold the law. Yet another tax dodging example!
Actually if this building has been standing 4 years the building would automatically have planning permission under UK planning law. It seems a rather petty and small minded move by the council as really all they gain by this move is a loss of revenue through council tax.
skychip says...
12:19pm Wed 10 Oct 12