The case for:
I do not see a problem here. It’s still looks like a garage from the outside appearance, so it must be jn keeping with the local area, the owners have not extended the boundaries or encroached onto their neighbours properties, and by all intents and purposes they have improved a run-down shed into a pleasant, pretty, affordable home in preference to living in an unhealthy,draughty, damp, inhospitable, near derelict cottage. What has got up the snooty noses of the planning committee is that they didn’t ask permission for a change of use and pay the council £thousands for doing what they have already done, just to get the application rubber stamped by the planning committee Stasi.
The case against:
He seems to think that hiding a property for 4 years means that he can simply put the paperwork in and then live in his converted property. He claims hes done nthing wrong yet he has hidden the window with an ornamental garden chair .Fitted huge gates so it can’t be seen from the road and left the garage doors in place so anyone who actually walked into the courtyard would see would be a garage. If it was as simple as simply not telling anyone you have built a property and hen hiding it for 4 years every unscrupulous property developer would be doing it. If he had put as much effort and planning into refurbishing or even rebuilding the existing cottage he would have no problems but he wanted two properties on the plot and avoid the hassle of making planning applications
Trouble is, for me, I can see both sides. Yes, letter of the law, other neighbours not afforded same largesse etc. And the gate was a bit of a giveaway:
But why on earth are homes on people’s properties, as long as the exterior is in keeping, a matter for the council? Only reason could be money for nothing.