What’s the issue with derelict properties?
Q. I've heard that self-builders are usually given permission to
demolish an existing house and build a new one, as long as it's not
considered derelict. Can you explain why replacing an abandoned
dwelling is frowned upon?
A. When considering the suitability of an existing house for replacement,
council planning officers always look closely at the condition of the
building. Dereliction is one of the signs of 'abandonment' - in
planning terms that means the residential use of the building is judged
to have been lost. Other factors taken into account include long
periods of vacancy or alternative use, as well as the intentions of the
current owners. So, for example, if someone goes into hospital for an
extended spell and their house is vandalised and rendered at least
semi-derelict, replacement would still be possible as there would have
been no intention to abandon the residential use.
The problem is that planning policy is freqeuntly firmly opposed to
the building of new houses in the countryside. If the original
property is so far gone that it's basically a ruin, then its
replacement would be considered to constitute the construction of a
new dwelling and would therefore be resisted. The fact there might
have been a house on the site for hundreds of years sadly doesn't
outweigh the current policy dogma. But there are no cast-iron rules
on this. A house might be considered just a bit 'run down'
and acceptable for replacement by one council, but that same property
could be seen as derelict by another.
< back to more Questions and Answers