odd question i know, but purely out of academic interest (honest), am
i legally permitted to knock down the house that i own ?
it is a semi-detached house, so care would obviously have to be taken
not to affect my neighbours house in any way, naturally,
but apart from that, it would certainly have a big effect on the
appearance of my street (where there are only 16 houses), and i
already know that i'm restricted as to the structural
changes/modifications to the house i can make (any major changes must
'fit in' so to speak).

i suppose what i'm asking here is this: if i am indeed permitted to
'remove' my house from this neighbourhood, then why shouldn't i be
permitted to make structural changes that DON'T 'fit in' (their
words), which of course would have a much more drastic affect.

and if the answer is NO, ican't remove/knock down my house (as i
suspect), then what is the true meaning of ownership ?

sorry if you think this question a bit 'odd', but i often ponder over
things like this !

hope there's a few legally minded people out there
thanks

No

"cuckoo flower" wrote in message
...

i suppose what i'm asking here is this: if i am indeed permitted to
'remove' my house from this neighbourhood, then why shouldn't i be
permitted to make structural changes that DON'T 'fit in' (their
words), which of course would have a much more drastic affect.

If you did knock down your own house, you wouldn't have a house. This deters
people from doing it. If you wanted to build another house on the land it
would have to fit in, so you're back to sqaure one. Except now you don't
have a house.

Pete

"PM" wrote in message
...

"cuckoo flower" wrote in message
...

i suppose what i'm asking here is this: if i am indeed permitted to
'remove' my house from this neighbourhood, then why shouldn't i be
permitted to make structural changes that DON'T 'fit in' (their
words), which of course would have a much more drastic affect.

If you did knock down your own house, you wouldn't have a house. This
deters
people from doing it. If you wanted to build another house on the land it
would have to fit in, so you're back to sqaure one. Except now you don't
have a house.

Pete

not to mention that you would compromise the structure of your neighbours
house. a slightly different case would be if you had a detached house that
was shielded from view from the street, but you'd still need permission from
building regs as well as a detailed description of how you plan to go about
it (incase you disturb anything that runs under your house, like drains,
etc.)

cuckoo flower wrote:

odd question i know, but purely out of academic interest (honest), am
i legally permitted to knock down the house that i own ?


Not without planning permission, no. It constitutes a 'major structural
change'

However once knocked down...


it is a semi-detached house, so care would obviously have to be taken
not to affect my neighbours house in any way, naturally,
but apart from that, it would certainly have a big effect on the
appearance of my street (where there are only 16 houses), and i
already know that i'm restricted as to the structural
changes/modifications to the house i can make (any major changes must
'fit in' so to speak).

i suppose what i'm asking here is this: if i am indeed permitted to
'remove' my house from this neighbourhood, then why shouldn't i be
permitted to make structural changes that DON'T 'fit in' (their
words), which of course would have a much more drastic affect.

and if the answer is NO, ican't remove/knock down my house (as i
suspect), then what is the true meaning of ownership ?



Ownership menas the bill for doing what they insist you do, is passed on
to you.

Seerisuly, owenreship - which you don't ACTUALLY have, you have FREEHOLD
which is the Crowns permission to occupy the Crowns land in
perpetuity..your right to 'quiet enjoyment' freedom from trespass, and
rights to farm the land and dig up minerals under it (sometimes). Along
with permission to occupy and use the land, other duties and obligations
may be placed upon the usage - liens and the like. Local planning law is
one of them, tho I don';t think its called a 'lien' in thatcase. 'liens'
are more things like having to maintain e.g. a public footpath, or let
your neighbour drive across your land to get to his house etc.

Local planing law mostly dictates that any 'material structural
alteration' shall be

(a) done according to explicit permission of the planners and
(b) done in accordance with current building regulations.

Knocking a house down is indeed 'a material structural altretion' :-)

In addition, if you have a mortgage, the bank will, as part of the
contract, have lien upon your house, such that IT effectively owns it,
and anything done to reduce its value may result in breach of contract
and repossesion (of whatever is left) and suing you for the balance.

Other companies - typically services such as gas, telephony, water and
electric - may have the right to lay pipes and cables under your
porperty, and teh government may, through and act of patrliament,
compulsorally purchase it to e.g. build a new road.

The coincil of course, has the right to tax you on living there, even if
you use no electricty, water, or the roads, and bury your own rubbish.

You don't buy a house to own, you buy the right to occupy a piece of
land, and a building, in perpetuity, and to sell that right freely to
someone else. Thats all. Everything else is subject to various powers
and authorities.







sorry if you think this question a bit 'odd', but i often ponder over
things like this !

hope there's a few legally minded people out there
thanks

Yes

In article , Cuckoo
flower wrote:
odd question i know, but purely out of academic interest
(honest), am i legally permitted to knock down the house
that i own ?

If it's a house I think you now need PP to demolish even if it's
detached, but not for non domestic buildings - there was some
feeling about a local pub being demolished before the planning
application for new flats on the site was determined and it was
held to be quite legal. If the house is in a conservation area
you'd be committing a criminal offence if you demolished before
getting consent.

what is the true meaning of ownership ?

These days the title may say freehold but you really hold a 999
year lease from your local council who can determine what you
can and can't do. It could be worse: there are private estates
on Kingston Hill where you can't sneeze unless the Resident's
Association agrees, and if you cross the chairman you're
finished.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

Yes
No

:-P
--
fred

Yes

I think what fred is saying is that you do need planning permission to knock
down a building. Of course, that doesn't stop half the developers round here
buying large Victorian houses on large plots and demolishing them in favour
of flats with no suggestion of planning permission in advance. "Sorry guv,
my foot must have slipped off the clutch on my bulldozer. Here's twenty
thousand quid I just found in my pocket."

Christian.

cuckoo flower wrote in message . ..
odd question i know, but purely out of academic interest (honest), am
i legally permitted to knock down the house that i own ?

My understanding is that you do need permission to demolish a
'dwelling house' -the law was changed on this in 1992. See
http://www.trafford.gov.uk/forms/DEM3.pdf
for an example of what you would have to fill in before you get busy
with your sledgehammer.

and if the answer is NO, ican't remove/knock down my house (as i
suspect), then what is the true meaning of ownership ?

Steady on, that's how Nicholas Van Hoogstraten started out. Since 1948
the planning legislation has been based on the theory that the way in
which land owners use their land has an impact on everyone else, and
so should be regulated for the public good. Seems to me there are much
more annoying limitations on ownership, such as why I can't put a
light switch in my bathroom in a position about ten feet from any
sources of water, but let's not go there ;-)

Martin

Seems to me there are much more annoying limitations on ownership,
such as why I can't put a light switch in my bathroom in a position
about ten feet from any sources of water, but let's not go there ;-)

I see no reason why you can't. 10 feet would put it totally outside the
zones. Even if it was in Zone 3 (from 0.6 to 2.4m from the edge of the
shower/bath) it would be allowed. Sinks and toilets don't count towards the
limitation, provided common sense is used.

Christian.

These days the title may say freehold but you really hold a 999
year lease from your local council who can determine what you
can and can't do.

That statement is completely untrue! If the building is not listed, and does
not affect the setting of a listed building, or in a conservation area, and
you own the freehold then subject to obvious things like not damaging other
people's property then you can of course demolish it. Certain buildings may
have covenants to protect the interests of others but these do not normally
affect the right to demolish.

you own the freehold then subject to obvious things like not damaging
other
people's property then you can of course demolish it.

It seems you may be right.

The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 would seem to indicate that this
would be a material alteration to the building. Any change that affects the
external appearance of the building would count. I'm sure you would agree
that demolition would alter the external appearance.

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995
gives the following paraphrased automatic planning permission:

Part 31

Demolition of Buildings

Class A

Any building operation consisting of the demolition of a building.

Conditions (A2)
a) Urgently necessary for health and safety with subsequent written
justification.

or

b) After giving notice for 28 days jumping through numerous hoops during
which the planning authority may elect to tell you how to demolish it, but
not if.

It is possible to have permitted development rights restricted. This is most
commonly in conservation areas etc. It won't apply to most houses.

For the original, see (near the bottom):

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uks...4.htm#IDANND3D

Of course, I may have misread all this stuff.

In article , Peter Crosland
writes

These days the title may say freehold but you really hold a 999
year lease from your local council who can determine what you
can and can't do.

That statement is completely untrue! If the building is not listed, and does
not affect the setting of a listed building, or in a conservation area, and
you own the freehold then subject to obvious things like not damaging other
people's property then you can of course demolish it. Certain buildings may
have covenants to protect the interests of others but these do not normally
affect the right to demolish.

Prior approval is required if it has a volume greater than 50m3 (Town and Country
Planning (Demolition-Description of Buildings) Direction 1995).

Presumably the DIY angle here is that we all really want to drive a jcb for a day?
--
fred

"fred" wrote in message ...
In article , Peter Crosland
writes

These days the title may say freehold but you really hold a 999
year lease from your local council who can determine what you
can and can't do.

That statement is completely untrue! If the building is not listed, and
does
not affect the setting of a listed building, or in a conservation area,
and
you own the freehold then subject to obvious things like not damaging
other
people's property then you can of course demolish it. Certain buildings
may
have covenants to protect the interests of others but these do not
normally
affect the right to demolish.

Prior approval is required if it has a volume greater than 50m3 (Town and
Country
Planning (Demolition-Description of Buildings) Direction 1995).

Presumably the DIY angle here is that we all really want to drive a jcb
for a day?
--
fred

Ah, now like all good legislation, there is probably a loophole here.

If you were to accidentally reverse said JCB (or something rather larger)
into the corner of the house whilst you were attempting to do a spot of
weeding in the herbacious border (pulled the wrong lever, honest), you might
render the house a dangerous structure.

Would the council then be forced to condemn the building, or could they
legally insist that you repair/rebuild?

Of course, as you own the house outright (ie no bank/building society charge
on the property) and you didn't want the house, then you wouldn't have
complications with buildings insurance....

cheers
Richard
--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...

snip there was some
feeling about a local pub being demolished before the planning
application for new flats on the site was determined and it was
held to be quite legal. snip

Ah, the developers have rather got their fingers burnt over this one. One
day the pub's there, the next it isnt! And they're then surprised when
strong local objections mean that the planners reject their proposals to
build a high density of flats in a road that already suffers parking
problems! We're watching this one with keen interest as it may well have
set a precedent for a couple of planned redevelopments of industrial sites
nearby...


what is the true meaning of ownership ?

These days the title may say freehold but you really hold a 999
year lease from your local council who can determine what you
can and can't do. It could be worse: there are private estates
on Kingston Hill where you can't sneeze unless the Resident's
Association agrees, and if you cross the chairman you're
finished.


You sure about this? I have a recollection from an explanation given to me
by a solicitor-turned-valuer who worked for my father that although freehold
does not technically equate to ownership, it is very different from even
very long leases.

My understanding was very much more in line with The Natural Philosopher's
posting on the subject. IANAL, but AIUI it all stems back to the Norman
Conquest. William took all lands to be the property of the crown.
Freeholds were given for land (ie perpetual rights to use/enjoy/build
on/whatever the land), but the ultimate ownership still stayed with the
Crown. i.e. there was no contract, no payment of ground rent, etc.

A long leasehold would imply a contract, and for the contract to be valid
there would need to be consideration paid to the leasholder, nominal as it
may be (eg the famous Peppercorn).

Although taxes may be levied on land "ownership" and occupation, these do
not equate to consideration in a contract of leasehold.

Of course, this could be a load of *&"!... (well, I did say IANAL) :-)

cheers
Richard
--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

In article , RichardS
noaccess@invalid.? writes
Prior approval is required if it has a volume greater than 50m3 (Town and
Country
Planning (Demolition-Description of Buildings) Direction 1995).

Presumably the DIY angle here is that we all really want to drive a jcb
for a day?
--
fred

Ah, now like all good legislation, there is probably a loophole here.

If you were to accidentally reverse said JCB (or something rather larger)
into the corner of the house whilst you were attempting to do a spot of
weeding in the herbacious border (pulled the wrong lever, honest), you might
render the house a dangerous structure.

Would the council then be forced to condemn the building, or could they
legally insist that you repair/rebuild?

Of course, as you own the house outright (ie no bank/building society charge
on the property) and you didn't want the house, then you wouldn't have
complications with buildings insurance....

Presumable the 'accident would reduce the volume to less than 50m3 ;-)
--
fred

Tony Bryer wrote:
In article , Cuckoo
flower wrote:
odd question i know, but purely out of academic interest
(honest), am i legally permitted to knock down the house
that i own ?

If it's a house I think you now need PP to demolish even if it's
detached, but not for non domestic buildings - there was some
[SNIP}
.. It could be worse: there are private estates
on Kingston Hill where you can't sneeze unless the Resident's
Association agrees, and if you cross the chairman you're finished.
What an excellent sounding scheme..

In article , Peter Crosland
wrote:
That statement is completely untrue! If the building is not
listed, and does not affect the setting of a listed building,
or in a conservation area, and you own the freehold then
subject to obvious things like not damaging other people's
property then you can of course demolish it.

From my reading of the Trafford form referred to in another post
it says that before demolishing a dwelling you have to submit
the form and they will have then eight weeks in which to decide
whether they will require you to seek permission. The obvious
implication is that if they so choose they can decide that you
will have to seek permission which they can then refuse.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
t...
you own the freehold then subject to obvious things like not damaging
other
people's property then you can of course demolish it.

It seems you may be right.

The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 would seem to indicate that this
would be a material alteration to the building. Any change that affects
the
external appearance of the building would count. I'm sure you would agree
that demolition would alter the external appearance.

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995
gives the following paraphrased automatic planning permission:

Part 31

Demolition of Buildings

Class A

Any building operation consisting of the demolition of a building.

Conditions (A2)
a) Urgently necessary for health and safety with subsequent written
justification.

or

b) After giving notice for 28 days jumping through numerous hoops during
which the planning authority may elect to tell you how to demolish it, but
not if.

It is possible to have permitted development rights restricted. This is
most
commonly in conservation areas etc. It won't apply to most houses.

For the original, see (near the bottom):

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uks...4.htm#IDANND3D

Of course, I may have misread all this stuff.




We live in the middle flat of a tenement. I wonder if I'd be allowed to
knock the house down and start again.


---
www.basecuritysystems.no-ip.com

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/03

In article , BillR
wrote:
on Kingston Hill where you can't sneeze unless the
Resident's Association agrees, and if you cross the chairman
you're finished.

What an excellent sounding scheme..

As we've seen recently even this is as nothing when compared
with the NY developments that won't even let you buy an
apartment if they don't like you.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

"BigWallop" wrote
| We live in the middle flat of a tenement. I wonder if I'd be allowed to
| knock the house down and start again.

You probably would be allowed to knock your flat down but you would have to
continue to provide support to the adjacent flats in all directions. In fact
the rights/obligations of support in tenements can be traced directly back
to Roman courts.

In modern parlance this would extend to all cables, pipes, etc, so you
cannot open-plan your flat and knock out 'Er Upstairs' lavvy pipe. The
Burdens in your deeds also probably prevent you altering the appearance of
your flat different to its neighbours.

Owain

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"BigWallop" wrote
| We live in the middle flat of a tenement. I wonder if I'd be allowed to
| knock the house down and start again.

You probably would be allowed to knock your flat down but you would have
to
continue to provide support to the adjacent flats in all directions. In
fact
the rights/obligations of support in tenements can be traced directly back
to Roman courts.

In modern parlance this would extend to all cables, pipes, etc, so you
cannot open-plan your flat and knock out 'Er Upstairs' lavvy pipe. The
Burdens in your deeds also probably prevent you altering the appearance of
your flat different to its neighbours.

Owain



So I'm literally stuck with keeping this one maintained then. Oh Well
(sigh), it was a nice thought while it lasted. :-))


---
www.basecuritysystems.no-ip.com

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 09/10/03

"BigWallop" wrote
| So I'm literally stuck with keeping this one maintained then.
| Oh Well (sigh), it was a nice thought while it lasted. :-))

Your insurance does cover gas explosions doesn't it?

Owain

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:04:10 GMT, fred wrote:

Presumable the 'accident would reduce the volume to less than 50m3 ;-)

LOL! ;O)

Take Care,
Gnube
{too thick for linux}

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
t...
Yes

I think what fred is saying is that you do need planning permission to
knock
down a building. Of course, that doesn't stop half the developers round
here
buying large Victorian houses on large plots and demolishing them in
favour
of flats with no suggestion of planning permission in advance. "Sorry guv,
my foot must have slipped off the clutch on my bulldozer. Here's twenty
thousand quid I just found in my pocket."

Christian.


Like the major owning brewery did with the historic Tommy Ducks pub in the
heart of Manchester city centre. In the middle of the night too.
They only received a small fine for doing it.
The land it was on (opposite Central Station and The Midland Hotel) is
worth a fortune
I still wonder why there was so little fuss made afterwards. It
stinks..........

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:01:36 +0100, a particular chimpanzee named
"RichardS" noaccess@invalid randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

Ah, now like all good legislation, there is probably a loophole here.

If you were to accidentally reverse said JCB (or something rather larger)
into the corner of the house whilst you were attempting to do a spot of
weeding in the herbacious border (pulled the wrong lever, honest), you might
render the house a dangerous structure.

Would the council then be forced to condemn the building, or could they
legally insist that you repair/rebuild?

Under the Building Act S.78, the local authority must take such action
as to remove the danger. This means that they can only do the minimum
possible to make the property safe (not necessarily the building), as
the bill for any work done by the Council gets sent to the owner.

The accidental JCB driver could end up with a house that's
uninhabitable, paying for the hire of a large number of Acrows, and a
bill for the dozen or so man-hours involved in securely fencing the
garden off from the road. Then he can start to apply for planning
permission to demolish the house. His neighbours (if they've got any
sense) will also start down the road of appointing their own Party
Wall surveyor to ensure that any demolition is done without adversely
affecting their property.
--
Hugo Nebula
"You know, I'd rather see this on TV,
Tones it down" - Laurie Anderson

In message ,
"BingoLady" wrote:


"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
t...
Yes

I think what fred is saying is that you do need planning permission to
knock
down a building. Of course, that doesn't stop half the developers round
here
buying large Victorian houses on large plots and demolishing them in
favour
of flats with no suggestion of planning permission in advance. "Sorry guv,
my foot must have slipped off the clutch on my bulldozer. Here's twenty
thousand quid I just found in my pocket."

Christian.


Like the major owning brewery did with the historic Tommy Ducks pub in the
heart of Manchester city centre. In the middle of the night too.
They only received a small fine for doing it.
The land it was on (opposite Central Station and The Midland Hotel) is
worth a fortune
I still wonder why there was so little fuss made afterwards. It
stinks..........



The hotel where we had our wedding reception closed down, and permission
was sought to build houses/apartments on the site. Permission was
refused and then... mysteriously... some weeks later the place burned
down.

Hmmm...

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Don't fight technology, live with it: http://www.livtech.co.uk/
.... The Eternal Triangle is usually right tangled.

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"BigWallop" wrote
| So I'm literally stuck with keeping this one maintained then.
| Oh Well (sigh), it was a nice thought while it lasted. :-))

Your insurance does cover gas explosions doesn't it?

Owain



But could I do that to the neighbours ? If I did, and knowing my luck, the
doggie plumbing in the upstairs flat would put out any fire before enough
damage was done, and then I'd be stuck redecorating again.

Still, one nice thing today, all the neighbours like the new front I made.
:-))


---
www.basecuritysystems.no-ip.com

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 09/10/03

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:58:26 +0100, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:


http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uks...4.htm#IDANND3D

Of course, I may have misread all this stuff.

There may well be other acts that relate.

I was informed that there is a presumption in my area that you cannot
reduce the number of "dwelling units". This apparently applies to
demolition and conversion of two cottages to one.

To get round this a mega corporation has left several houses abandoned
to vandals. When they become sufficiently dangerous they will be
demolished.

WRT the term "freehold" being a grant from the crown: is this not why
land reverts to the crown if the owner dies intestate?

AJH

"BingoLady" wrote in message
...

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
t...
Yes

I think what fred is saying is that you do need planning permission to
knock
down a building. Of course, that doesn't stop half the developers round
here
buying large Victorian houses on large plots and demolishing them in
favour
of flats with no suggestion of planning permission in advance. "Sorry
guv,
my foot must have slipped off the clutch on my bulldozer. Here's twenty
thousand quid I just found in my pocket."

Christian.


Like the major owning brewery did with the historic Tommy Ducks pub in the
heart of Manchester city centre. In the middle of the night too.
They only received a small fine for doing it.
The land it was on (opposite Central Station and The Midland Hotel) is
worth a fortune
I still wonder why there was so little fuss made afterwards. It
stinks..........


I remember two things about the Tommy Ducks
1) All the knickers stapled to the ceiling
2) Saw Windsor Davies in there!

Pete