built a new house and changed garage door to a door and window unit, converted garage to a room but still needed door for access and tool storage.
One condition of the retension was that the door be blocked up and plastered over, other condition reads:-
The house shall be used as a single dwellinghouse and no part of the dwellinghouse shall be let/sublet or otherwise disposed of as such.
My problem with this is last month I had a 4 bed house that I could rent or sell to investor, this month cant rent or sell same 4 bed house to an investor. There was no occupancy clause in origonal planning.
1. The “Rent a room” scheme would not be covered as one is there on licence rather than by letting.
2. “No part of the dwellinghouse” – I would query whether the whole house comes under “part of”. If this were a piece of Legislation, then you’d probably be allowed to let the whole house as legislation is interpreted strictly.
Also under the mischief rule of statutory interpretation, (since the condition would appear to have been put in to prevent turning the garage into a separate flat) interpreting it to mean that “the whole house” is not “part of the dwellinghouse” would make sense.
I’m not certain what rules of interpretation are applied to Planning conditions.
Bob is right interpretation of the specific wording is at the nub of this;
my guess is that part-letting would be prohibited as the intention of the clause was probably to stop a seperate dwelling and access and parking requirement but that disposal of the entire would be permitted as there would be intensification as opposed to multiplication of effect. Then one provisio I would consider is if an argument was made for extenuating circumstances on the basis of a large family needing more space at a particular location and that a planner granted on this basis where a refusal may have otherwise resulted.