Abandoning all hope of des res

Apr 2 2008 by Graeme King, The Journal

HAVE you ever noticed a run-down derelict building in the countryside, possibly a house or barn, that has stood empty for many years?

Perhaps you may have thought that it would make an ideal development. Would planning authorities welcome such proposals? In practice their views can vary. Some authorities maintain that a deserted structure should be left alone – that by slowly succumbing to the elements and disappearing under vegetation it contributes to the charm of the countryside. Other authorities take a more pro-active view.

Even if the planning authority is not against such a development, there are still many other issues that you need to consider. But here I would like to consider just one: abandonment.

Can a house that has been unoccupied for many years still be classed as a house? The question is important, because if the dwelling has not been abandoned, then you are in a stronger position to renovate, repair and extend.

The guidelines dealing with abandonment are mainly found in court judgments. Decisions depend very much on the circumstances of the case and so there are wide variations of outcomes. Generally, the key considerations include:

What is the physical condition of the house? When did it stop being occupied as a house? Has there been any intervening use since then? Did the owner mean to abandon the house?

As you may imagine, it can be difficult to find answers to these questions. How can you discover the previous owners’ intentions if they died several years ago? What would happen if the building was used for another purpose, such as a storage for farm machinery, once it had stopped being occupied?

Sometimes it is easy to show that a house has been abandoned. Take the following examples: a country cottage had remained unoccupied for over 77 years and the building had not been secured from the weather, trespassers or animals. Not surprisingly, the court held that the building had been abandoned.

Now consider this next case. A dwelling had its slate roof and a gable wall removed on the grounds of safety. What was left of the building was in a poor structural state, made worse by being exposed to the elements for 18 months. Photographs showed that little of the building remained. Despite such unfavourable appearances, however, there was good evidence to show that the owner wanted to continue to live there. This was a sufficient enough reason to show that the building had not been abandoned.

Peter McEvoy is a town planner at Ward Hadaway law firm in Newcastle.