Beds in Sheds
- Thread starter borich_planner
- Start date
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 1,505
Living/Sleeping/Eating makes it self contained and in the eyes of planning law self contained. Therefore not ancillary to the existing dwelling.
I object to much of the stupid regulation and petty bureaucracy associated with local government, and so far the best reason presented is that they aren't paying council tax for living on property that has already paid council tax...
Arguing against the rampant stupidity that seems to consume 99% of the population of this country isn't arguing for the sake of it...
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
if it was owned by a different person or on a seperate piece of land then i would agree that is a seperate dwelling, very fuzzy since it's part of the property which pays council tax... it's like a granny flat without the permissions!
imho planners should try and cut down the time it takes them to deal with paying customers rather than investigating nosey neighbours complaints all the time! ask for a meeting on site and you'll be waiting for weeks, complain about your neighbours and the enforcement bloke is round the next day!!
imho planners should try and cut down the time it takes them to deal with paying customers rather than investigating nosey neighbours complaints all the time! ask for a meeting on site and you'll be waiting for weeks, complain about your neighbours and the enforcement bloke is round the next day!!
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
So if I decided to build a house in my garden and rent it out the people who move in shouldnt have to pay council tax?
So you wouldn't have a problem if your neighbour built a large shed and another family moved in.
You would be on the phone faster than you could say Council Tax Band D.
Would make no odds to me, any more than if they suddenly moved another 5 people into the inside of their house.
What you wouldn't be the slightest bit aggrieved that you had to pay your rates and taxes and some other people didn't.
[TW]Fox;19098747 said:
Again, a loaded question because it assumes council tax is a supported taxation approach, but I'll try and ignore it and answer.
Largely, it would depend on the nature of the arrangement. I don't agree, for example, with the idea that annexes or 'granny flats' should be liable for council tax when occupied by close associates. On the flip side, dividing your garden in two with fences, adding full secondary access and then building a house in it is somewhat different, although it would still depend on the nature of the arrangement as to whether I feel it should be liable.
The solution, of course, is to get rid of the unfair and unjust council tax system and replace it with a system either based on ability to pay (local income tax) or service needs (poll tax).
Seriously, change the record. It's not a loaded question at all, its a totally valid question because like it or not, we have to pay council tax in this country and just because your ideals are that we shouldn't doesn't make ANY difference.
Yea, poll tax will go down well, good suggestion.
Because the current setup doesn't achieve a meaningful relationship between number of people and tax paid, so why should I care where on their land they put the extra people? Why should it give two different tax liabilities depending on whether they are in a shed in the garden or sleeping in the house?
The subject isn't about what you consider to be an unfair tax though.
[TW]Fox;19098854 said:
On the contrary, when discussing what should be paid, it makes all the difference in the world. To dismiss that part of the discussion is the very definition of a loaded question.
Hence why I offered two suggestions, not one...
I do wonder sometimes, that's two people who have ignored the actual answer I gave in lieu of defending the asking of a loaded question....
I sometimes wish you'd go and test your wild thoeries in the real world by standing for election rather than just irritating everyone on here with them. You might even enjoy it!
I give up, I can't be bothered to argue with you, it's too much like hard work when you keep banging on about 'loaded questions' just because somebody asks you if you think its fair that some people evade council tax.
I give up, I can't be bothered to argue with you, it's too much like hard work when you keep banging on about 'loaded questions' just because somebody asks you if you think its fair that some people evade council tax.
So are you really saying that if my neighbour builds and shed and install basic amenities and rents it out, I shouldn't have a problem if the occupants of that shed do not pay rates and council tax, is that what you are saying.
Don't reply with your usual waffle, just answer yes or no.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 9,410
- Location
- Around Town
She's rough rough rough POF ?
Last edited:
That is quite clearly a loaded fallacy, perpetuated by a sort of welfare-job equipped ponzi scheme participant.
Are you saying that if they rented out a room within their house, they shouldn't have to pay any extra at all, even though they use the same amount of additional services?
This is the false dichotomy created by council tax when applied to this sort of problem, and the reason why a simple answer is hard to give.
If absolutely pushed, I would say no, they shouldn't' have to pay extra, just as the extra people living in the same house don't have to pay extra. In reality, this is a result of the flawed system of taxation and a desire to try and fairly apply an unfair system.
[TW]Fox;19098953 said:
Actually, it is another loaded question...
Dolph you seem to hate the public sector worker? And while I agree there is some waste but at the same time they also provide large amounts of money private companies which would go bust without the money they get from the public sector.
I believe you work in an orange call centre? Ask yourself this, would orange be were it is today if the public sector wasn't so big and taking out massive contracts from orange?
I believe you work in an orange call centre? Ask yourself this, would orange be were it is today if the public sector wasn't so big and taking out massive contracts from orange?
Last edited: