At the rally I asked a question of Richard Heggie concerning the footprint of a hut. Both myself and another attendee have similar properties. They are disused water treatment works purchased from Scottish Water. These concrete structures are like icebergs, the greater part is subground. What I would like to do is to remove the top of the structure (about 5 feet above ground) and build a hut with a 30 square metre footprint above ground. However, that leaves a 20 square metre "basement".
Is this outside the definition of a hut?
Well, don't take this as planning advice - I'm not a planner - but to me it seems like a great idea - takes something that is a bit of an eyesore and could turn it into something much better, and with a future low-impact use. I imagine the design you choose would be very important in how planners looked at it. The best thing to do would be to begin a conversation with your planners - interesting that Andrew recommends saying it's sealed off under ground - I wonder what's the best way to get advice about how to proceed without shooting yourself in the foot with an approach that rings the planners' alarm bells...?
A fine panorama! Remember any hut should be 6m from a boundary/other hut
This is the property mentioned. As I said, I would prefer to take the visible area off and replace it with a hut. The other person, with a similar property, is thinking about leaving his structure intact and scraping the earth away to expose the entire frontage. This would enable a door and window to be inserted.
It is a 400 square metre plot so could get another one or two "traditional huts on it.
Interesting one. I expect basements haven't been considered. Might be best to ignore it in an application, or say it's sealed off? Otherwise it'll likely cause a problem.