Buying and selling a house is undeniably a stressful experience.

There are all those DIY jobs you left that now need doing to make your home look its best. Then there’s preparing for the viewings, the survey, the packing.

But when you make the sudden discovery that you need planning consent for works you’ve had carried out on your house - that’s when stress levels hit the roof.

And it was the roof that was part of the problem. A re-roof carried out in 2010. The best of the old Manx slate retained for the front, new Spanish slate fitted to the back. No other changes to the size or shape of the roof or the number of Velux windows.

You wouldn’t normally need planning consent for that in the UK.

Go to the helpful interactive guide on the gov.im planning website and it tells you: ’Planning permission is not required for repair and/or maintenance works to a roof, including re-roofing provided that the materials used are the same as those being replace.

’If the materials to be used will change the appearance of the building, planning permission is required.’

I took from that I wouldn’t need planning consent. Wrong. The planning officer patiently explained that planning is required because different slates were used in addition to the existing slates.

Isn’t that the point of a re-roof? How many re-roofs involve simply putting back all the old tiles? Very few, I suspect.

How many homeowners in the island have had their property re-roofed little realising that they needed planning consent? Oh, and if you’ve had the work done since 2014, you will need building control too.

But that was just part of the problem. I also needed planning consent for recent work to re-render the cottage with lime mortar. Again, you wouldn’t normally need planning for this in the UK.

Here, the interactive map tells you that ’re-rendering of the external finish of a dwelling is not considered to be development and does not require planning permission provided that it matches the existing finish’.

You could certainly argue that removing the plastic wall coating that held in the damp and restoring the house to its original condition should not be considered to be development.

Be that as it may I paid £95 for a retrospective planning application for the re-render and a further £95 for to make my re-roof works lawful.

And having advertised the applications for a period of 21 days, with no objections received, and received a decision by planning officers made under delegated powers, I’m now the happy owner of lawful walls and roof.

All went through smoothly and efficiently, with no hold-ups. In 2012, Tynwald approved changes to permitted development rules that meant a whole swathe of minor works no longer require planning consent.

This includes installation of satellite dishes and CCTV, replacement windows and doors, and erection or alteration of fences, walls and gates.

Time is long overdue for that list of permitted development to be extended.

And government is indeed considering changes to the planning system.

Earlier this year, it launched a consultation which elicited 171 responses.

Many gave examples of small scale uncontentious development that sensibly should not need planning. Others suggested the system is skewed in favour major development and big developers.

Is it any wonder people get frustrated with planning rules when we have to apply for permission for seemingly the most trivial of improvements to our homes?

It’s our planning system that requires essential works to be fixed.