cani knock down my OWN house ?

[cuckoo flower]

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

[PM]

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

[Simon]

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.)

[The Natural Philosopher]

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

However once knocked down...

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.

[Tony Bryer]

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.

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.

[fred]

No

:-P

[Christian McArdle]

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.

[Martin Pentreath]

My understanding is that you do need permission to demolish a 'dwelling house' -the law was changed on this in 1992. See

an example of what you would have to fill in before you get busy with your sledgehammer.

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

[Christian McArdle]

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.

[Peter Crosland]

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.

[Christian McArdle]

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):

course, I may have misread all this stuff.

[fred]

In article , Peter Crosland 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?

[RichardS]

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

[RichardS]

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...

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

[fred]

In article , RichardS writes

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

[BillR]

[SNIP} . It could be worse: there are private estates

What an excellent sounding scheme..

[Tony Bryer]

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.

[BigWallop]

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

[Tony Bryer]

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.

[Owain]

"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