Anyone have experience of subdividing a plot and guidance you need to adhere to?

for example, we have:
developer buys a plot containing 6 cottages and an old smiddy.

developer subdivides plot to individual cottages and on plot consisting of most of rear garden space and the smiddy.

Developer sells on cottages individually.

developer gains planning permission for plot, then sells plot on.

plot is sized such that cottages have insufficient private garden area in accordance with local planning guidance for new developments, assuming this is applicable when a new subdivision is made, based on the land and remaining being ‘altered’.

question is, at what point if at all and by whom should the developer be notified of the impact on existing properties and their amenity the subdivision would have? Should it have been planning? should it have been land registry?

Or is it a case that, the new owners of the cottages just have to suck it up?
I’m struggling to believe there are not processes in place to prevent this situation, where one boundary change blights several existing properties?

There is a bit more, where on an early planning application for the plot planning responded by stating there was insufficient space allocated for the cottages, to which the development plot (not the saleable plot) boundary was adjusted to account (basically another few m garden allowed to the cottages). This was not an additional legal subdivision but an allowance.

The residents were informed by the developer and planing there would be an allowance which would solve the insufficient space problem, but it would be unlikely that planning would be granted.

This was followed through to the new owner and development plot, but there is no legal requirement for the new owner to allocate any space to the cottages.

answers on a postcard…..

Crikey those developers are really getting on people nerves aren’t they by trying to squeeze as much as they can out of every inch of the land.

My answer is no idea but going by the bureaucratic system here I bet there is a rule for everything.

I’m struggling to understand your post, but based on my interpretation so far…

Planning permission isn’t required to subdivide an area of land. Land Registry is simply there to register ownership and boundaries; they won’t care.

Planning permission is/was required to obtain development permission for the garden plot. Planning dept should have picked up – as you say they did – if this affected the amenity of the existing cottages (although technically the local policy wouldn’t necessarily apply to existing dwellings, only to new ones (new-build or subdivided/converted)).

If the developer intends to do something which is not in accordance with the submitted drawings for the planning approval (which must have shown the revised boundary which provided enough amenity space) then they will be in breach of their planning permission.

Your first step should be to talk to the local planning dept (ideally the case officer who dealt with the last app) and explain the situation to them.

Thanks,

the planning officer doesn’t understand why there would be the offer of additional land for the cottages to use as there is no legal responsibility. They have not responded when asked directly how this could occur. Previous advice and correspondence has implied that the development if it were to go ahead would not impact neighboring property.

The developer has breached planning consent, yes, by adjusting the development plot boundary within the ownership boundary. Not a lot that planning can do about that as far as I know, it is his land essentially, other than get him to retrospectively submit another application.

As far as I can tell, planning isn’t required to subdivide a plot, or several plots in this case as the new plot is formed from 5 rear gardens, therefore my understanding is that the 5 cottages impacted by this have also been subdivided?

Is land registry just a process of submit plot details and drawings and the register will be updated?

Essentially, the developer could have placed the boundary a metre from the door without objection or legal requirement to protect future amenity of existing buildings? that sounds plain wrong, but it from what I can gather could well have been the case.

Now, this has come to light after one of the cottages opened communication with planning to put up a small shed in their rear garden (it’s a conservation area) and had it refused based upon lack of private garden space, for a 6×4 shed.

potentially this will drastically reduce the value of all of the properties in the row as there can be no future extensions and garden usage by householders may well be subject to restrictions.

Not sure anything has been done ‘wrong’.

Land registry only records ownership and issues recorded on titles. Nothing to do with them.

Anyone can apply for planning on any land, it is up to those effected to object and the council to rule on whether a proposal is within guidelines. Building regs have to sign off anything from an implementation aspect or in regard to safety. Is it unsafe?

If the cottages had some longstanding access rights then that cannot be over ruled by a change in ownership i.e. if an access road is sold it doesn’t mean you can’t drive down it if you have a right to do so. However, if you sell your garden you cannot be upset if a wall appears at the line where you sold it.

What is the claim over the cottage? If it’s leased then they can’t sell the garden when you are the tenant! If there was no tenant then they can!

I’m not sure if anything has been done wrong either as such.

The land was subdivided while it was under one ownership, then sold on as separate properties and eventually the rear plot.

I’m surprised that a single landowner can subdivide his land to reduce the amount of land appropriate for properties on that land, without any challenge. And that the subdivided plots can then be sold on without any intervention or suggestion that to the landowner that the remaining land will be insufficient for the property ond occupants to use.

I would have expected at the point of subdivision, there would have been some intervention to protect the amenity of the properties.

For this you’d have to use guidance applicable to new plots. It’s not a historic space issue, its a new space issue created by the subdivision.

am i missing something ? regardless of the lack of garden space – surely the owners of the cottages KNEW the size of the garden they bought? prior to buying it.

regardless of the lack of garden space – surely the owners of the cottages KNEW the size of the garden they bought? prior to buying it.

I thought that, and the cottages would have been valued (and purchased) according to having small(er) gardens.

what about flats that effectively have no garden ? they have not got enough space for the occupants to use effectively.

the right to extend is like the right to light – it doesnt exist.

maybe so, but maybe not the implication a reduced sized garden will have to future use (in accordance with planning that is. Should they have been versed in the local planning guidance before buying? maybe so, I don’t know.

I suppose what you’re saying is that the next people buying the cottages probably won’t know either so will just have to put up with any restrictions placed upon them as a result and the seller will need to keep quiet about it.

Doesn’t seem ideal does it, and you’d think that perhaps the planning department, who would impose future restrictions may have had opportunity to prevent that in the first place? Don’t think they did have opportunity though. I don’t actually think they have any authority over legally divided land. So it either needs savvy buyers, or savvy solicitors to highlight the potential issue and advise against.

Now, this has come to light after one of the cottages opened communication with planning to put up a small shed in their rear garden (it’s a conservation area) and had it refused based upon lack of private garden space, for a 6×4 shed.

Eh? Can’t even imagine ever contacting Planning about putting a small shed up. How small are these gardens?

what about flats that effectively have no garden ? they have not got enough space for the occupants to use effectively.

flats come under diffferent requirements, houses have a certain minimum length private garden from the rear of the property and a minimum square metre per bedroom or potential bedroom.

of course this amount varies depending upon your LA

Eh? Can’t even imagine ever contacting Planning about putting a small shed up. How small are these gardens?

it’s a conservation area, you need planning permission to fart.

How the hell did the developer get permission to subdivide a conservation area, and how on earth did they get planning for new buildings? WTF?

plot is sized such that cottages have insufficient private garden area in accordance with local planning guidance for new developments

1) I’m not sure that ‘planning guidance’ is enforceable – it’s just a guide.
2) ^ is for new developments, not existing properties (i.e. the six cottages) so probably would not apply anyway.

in my local area the guidance notes say – ALL NEW HOUSES must.

The cottages sound like old houses….. i guess i get your question now – does said rules apply to existing properties……

Never mind that,

WTF is a “smiddy”?

How the hell did the developer get permission to subdivide a conservation area

who would he have had to get permission off?

1) I’m not sure that ‘planning guidance’ is enforceable – it’s just a guide.
2) It’s for new developments, not existing properties (i.e. the six cottages) so probably would not apply anyway.

the planning guidance is used to refuce an application, so that’s the enforcement I guess.
although the buildings are already existing, the ‘plots’ including gardens are new, or modified. I’m making the assumption that the lack of guidance coviring this specifically the only guidance that makes any sense to use would be for new plots. However, I am aware that not everything makes sense.

WTF is a “smiddy”?

scottish smithy 🙂

wow so many spelling mistakes, sorry, fat fingers and no spell checker…

Thanks all for the responses so far. I’m finding this very useful.

I don’t quite understand this, there are six houses with a Smiddy behind. The boundaries are re-jigged, and the houses sold.

End of? Is the problem that now something will be built on the land behind that isn’t owned by the houses?
Or that the house used to have a bigger garden and now doesn’t?

you need to be clear , when the cottages were sold were they sold with small back gardens but some clear space abutting the garden or is it the case that the development plot is now encroaching on what was sold as their garden?

The point at which something was done wrong was when the developer erected a fence or wall along a boundary in a different location to that approved on the planning application drawings. It would be possible for the planning dept to take ‘enforcement action’ against this and make him rebuild it to match the plans. From your posts it’s hard to know how long ago this was – if recent then enforcement might be an option but if it’s years ago then doubt anything can/will be done.

Say the cottage owner wasn’t made aware of this (that the garden was technically ‘too small’ and that their Permitted Development Rights had effectively been removed (note these are limited in a CA anyway)) when they bought the property from the developer after the initial subdivision of the site, then perhaps they’d have a case for having been deceived by omission of information. Sounds like they’d need a lawyer. I don’t know how far caveat emptor etc goes with houses – presumably they went for the ‘right’ market amount and couldn’t have been overpriced.

Planning ‘guidance’ is binding when adopted by the LPA, sometimes known as SPDs (Supplementary Planning Documents) or SPGs (Supplementary Planning Guidance). If it’s a local Design Guide that isn’t formally adopted then it’s just there as ‘desirable’ not ‘non-negotiable’.

You don’t need planning permission to change a title boundary but in a conservation area I think you would need it to change anything on the ground, even having trees chopped down would need permission.

So the point where gardens are physically changed is where the planning permission would be required. At that point it is up to the council to apply whatever guidelines and make a recommendation that goes before council or is agreed by delegated powers, assuming an application was submitted.

If you bought one a number of things should have happened; your solicitor should have explained the title to you and should have identified if the title and garden did not match up. If that was done and both matched then the change in the garden either had or did not have planning permission and that should also have been flagged up. It is hard to know how obvious these things would have been without some idea of the scale of changes.

I don’t quite understand this, there are six houses with a Smiddy behind. The boundaries are re-jigged, and the houses sold.

yes

[/quote]End of? Is the problem that now something will be built on the land behind that isn’t owned by the houses?[/quote]

no, not really. The actual problem is that planning consider the smaller gardens inapropriately sized for the cottages, something that the owners were not aware of at purchase. Once the cottages were occupied and planning sought for the new plot the comment from planning was that the plot didn’t allow sufficient private garden space for the cottages.

Planning permission was denied due to this, and other things too.
But eventually planning was granted for two houses and a smiddy conversion, then the land sold undeveloped.

I’m trying to figure out if the subdivision should have been allowed to proceed, as it has resulted in the planning departments position of the cottages gardens.

As others have said, this is a planning application issue. Form what I understand of your post the developer has got a planning application approved (outline only) and sold on the land on that basis. It would;t be impossible that he well knows / suspects the planning application is a bit dodgy and likely to be challenged so he has flogged the land and moved on ?

I doubt you can challenge the subdivision, you can challenge the planning application / approval.

timescales wise we’re looking at 7 years ago for the planning for the plot, when we were made aware of the potential problem of space.

There was an allowance made by the developer, not a legal agreement, which in hindsight I think there should have been, of additional garden space as ‘compensation’ to allow planning permission. When planning was gained, of course there is no legal right to the extra land, so that got chucked out of the window when the present owner bought it.
we did have an agreement that the boundary wouldn’t change 3 years ago, but now that the build is complete (like a month ago) and boundary fences are in place, he’s decided taht as it’s his land he’ll do what he likes. Fair enough.

worth noting that the landowner build one house for himself on the land, so required planning for that.
there is a difference in ownership boundary and development plot boudary, but I doubt planning will be able to justify the purpose of the difference in boundaries as they have changed their position from the first permission refused 7 years ago.

I doubt you can challenge the subdivision, you can challenge the planning application / approval.

that’s an interesting one, I don’t think there would be any justifiable position with regard boundaries. The cottages have a boundary, the plot has a boundary. The planning appllication was for the plot, why consider what impat the plot hon the whole has on neighbouring properties other than in context, planning only consider the development plot as the development area.

The point at which something was done wrong was when the developer erected a fence or wall along a boundary in a different location to that approved on the planning application drawings. It would be possible for the planning dept to take ‘enforcement action’ against this and make him rebuild it to match the plans. From your posts it’s hard to know how long ago this was – if recent then enforcement might be an option but if it’s years ago then doubt anything can/will be done.

This was recent, and does suggest to us what sort of guy he is, nice enough, but very focussed on every inch he owns. However I don’t know what the point would be, there would be this bit of land that they own, but isn’t part of their garden, no one else could use without permission, and I think it would be a flash point that no one needs.

So planning was initially declined as it didn’t allow sufficient private garden space for the cottages. Subsequently planning was granted for two houses and a smiddy conversion, then the land sold undeveloped.

I’m trying to figure out if the subdivision should have been allowed to proceed, as it has resulted in the planning departments position of the cottages gardens.

Has the garden boundary been changed?

Was the change included in the planning application that was granted?

If its Yes Yes to the above two then the council went back on their original comments which they often do as they will often try to prevent things they don’t like but they often lose such decisions on appeal and just avoid the process.

If its Yes No then there is an issue there that planning enforcement could look at. I suspect it’s the former though.

Has the garden boundary been changed?

Was the change included in the planning application that was granted?

If its Yes Yes to the above two then the council went back on their original comments which they often do as they will often try to prevent things they don’t like but they often lose such decisions on appeal and just avoid the process.

If its Yes No then there is an issue there that planning enforcement could look at. I suspect it’s the former though.

yes, the garden boundary was changed, but the ownership between the new boundary and the cottages garden remained the same.

yes, it was included, although the planning officer I spoke with hand’t a clue why it had been.

This was recent, and does suggest to us what sort of guy he is, nice enough, but very focussed on every inch he owns. However I don’t know what the point would be, there would be this bit of land that they own, but isn’t part of their garden, no one else could use without permission, and I think it would be a flash point that no one needs.

So what would be the ideal outcome?
What if this chap was forced by planning enforcement to rebuild the wall on the drawn/approved boundary (quite important in a Conservation Area!) and then had a useless strip of land beyond his wall…do you think there’s any chance of the cottages negotiating to buy it at a bargain price in order to bring their gardens up to the proportion that would re-enable extensions and garden sheds etc? What value would it add to the properties?

So what would be the ideal outcome?
What if this chap was forced by planning enforcement to rebuild the wall on the drawn/approved boundary (quite important in a Conservation Area!) and then had a useless strip of land beyond his wall…do you think there’s any chance of the cottages negotiating to buy it at a bargain price in order to bring their gardens up to the proportion that would re-enable extensions and garden sheds etc? What value would it add to the properties?

Ideally that would suit, but it would require planning to enforce prior to approaching him with the question.

However, was this preventable by an authority, rather than actions from the cottage owners?

I suspect also that faced with the option of either repositioning fences and concrete slabs he’d rather resubmit another planning apllication.

I still don’t see a problem. The new boundary had planning permission. The cottages were sold with this boundary in place. This is my understanding.

The only problems would be changing something without planning or changing something on land that was not owned by the developer (I don’t see where that has happened).

Are you building a case around a comment in a planning application that was superseded? If so it won’t stand.

I’m asking if the subdivision of gardens to create a development plot should be allowed to occur if it is to the detriment of multiple existing properties. If not, what measures are in place to prevent this?

Prior to subdivision, the cottages had more than enough space to allow extension and garden buildings without fear of planning refusal. Now there is no possibility.

Understandibly there was opportnity for a development plot as there was plenty of space, but this perhaps should have been more considerate of the requirements of the existing cottages, especially in a conservation area?

If the cottages and land to the rear are in the same ownership then the owner is entitled to put forward planning and implement it when he gets it. The Council had it within their powers to block the development on the basis it is too ‘dense’ or any other explanation they felt appropriate if it encroached on to existing established gardens however in this case they did not take that view and granted planning. That in affect reduced the size of the gardens of the cottages and any subsequent purchaser would have been aware of the boundary and planning in place.

it did’t quite happen in that order unfortunately.

owner subdivided land, sold cottages with smaller gardens, then applied for planning permission for the remaining plot which was refused. then tweaked several times until planning was approved, then sold plot with permission. New owner inherited tweaked development boundary, planning permission granted for single house, built, but he owns outwith the tweaked development plan, up to the ownership boundary of the smaller cottage gardens.

so planning didn’t see the subdivision until after the cottges were sold.

What do you stand to gain from him moving his fence ?

He moves his fence but still owns the strip.

Your fence stays where it is

You still cant get your shed up.and he has a fence in the middle of his garden ,

I’m not actually looking to gain anything from this, great if I had more garden space to use, but not really bothered either way.

I merely wish to understand whether there should have been consideration to other properties when it was subdivided.

I think however at this point that if you own a large plot, you can divide it up as you wish. Providing you don’t alter the existing buildings, as you’d need to apply for planning and they would flag up a space issue. You are free then to sell the buildings as seen.

I think this is what has happneded here. The orginal landowner/developer subdivided the plots, sold the cottages on, where they were then renovated and planning applications submitted. At this point the plots were privately owned and therefore legally divided, so had no claim on the plot to the rear.

Had the original landowner/developer renovated, and applied for paning permission for the cottages, then there probably wouldn’t be the issue, or at least planning would have been able to intervene.

I think that’s cleared it up. Thanks all.