retrospective planning question
Discussion
Interested in your opinion on the following...
we have got quite a long way down the line on buying a ne build house and very recently discovered it doesnt have correct planning. (he hadnt mentioned a thing!)
In short, the developer built 2 houses 2 doors apart. He had planning permission to build bungalows. He then applied for retrospective permission to change the plans as these were obviously houses and had steeper roof pitches and were taller.
He got it immediately on the 1st house (his own) but now the locals (not surprisingly) kicked up a bit of a stink and the 2nd house (ours), is going to a planning committee meeting.
I realise worst case they could pull it down (the planning officer has told me he thinks this is unlikely as its in keeping with other houses - its along riverbank)...
but I'm interested in if anybody here knows whats likely to happen - fine, be allowed etc etc etc..
We're in limbo now & i think we lose the buyer on our current property anytime soon.
Cheers,
Craig
we have got quite a long way down the line on buying a ne build house and very recently discovered it doesnt have correct planning. (he hadnt mentioned a thing!)
In short, the developer built 2 houses 2 doors apart. He had planning permission to build bungalows. He then applied for retrospective permission to change the plans as these were obviously houses and had steeper roof pitches and were taller.
He got it immediately on the 1st house (his own) but now the locals (not surprisingly) kicked up a bit of a stink and the 2nd house (ours), is going to a planning committee meeting.
I realise worst case they could pull it down (the planning officer has told me he thinks this is unlikely as its in keeping with other houses - its along riverbank)...
but I'm interested in if anybody here knows whats likely to happen - fine, be allowed etc etc etc..
We're in limbo now & i think we lose the buyer on our current property anytime soon.
Cheers,
Craig
Don't walk away... run.
My understanding is that there is no mechanism for a 'fine' for buildings that have been put up without consent.
The only options in terms of enforcement are:
1) Knock it down.
2) Modify the unacceptable design so that it becomes acceptable.
Even (2) can be horrendously complicated, costly and time-consuming.
Retrospective planning applications are supposed to be judged strictly on their own merits (ie. without any bias in either direction on the part of the Planning Authority because the building is already there).
This is potentially a double-edged sword, because while on the one hand they're not allowed to 'punish' you for having built without permission in the first place, on the other hand they don't have to go out of their way in terms of 'it's not quite right, but we'll accept it because it's already there'. Even fairly minors stuff like roof ridge lines, windows in the worng place, or elevational detailing not in keeping with the local vernacular, can end up miring you down in planning negotiations for months on end, then costing you a fortune to put right when you've finally agreed a solution.
edited to add: ...oh, and any developer who is trying to sell you a new-build house that doesn't have Planning Permission is either incompetent or a shyshter and a cowboy. Either way, you don't want to be buying a house from him
My understanding is that there is no mechanism for a 'fine' for buildings that have been put up without consent.
The only options in terms of enforcement are:
1) Knock it down.
2) Modify the unacceptable design so that it becomes acceptable.
Even (2) can be horrendously complicated, costly and time-consuming.
Retrospective planning applications are supposed to be judged strictly on their own merits (ie. without any bias in either direction on the part of the Planning Authority because the building is already there).
This is potentially a double-edged sword, because while on the one hand they're not allowed to 'punish' you for having built without permission in the first place, on the other hand they don't have to go out of their way in terms of 'it's not quite right, but we'll accept it because it's already there'. Even fairly minors stuff like roof ridge lines, windows in the worng place, or elevational detailing not in keeping with the local vernacular, can end up miring you down in planning negotiations for months on end, then costing you a fortune to put right when you've finally agreed a solution.
edited to add: ...oh, and any developer who is trying to sell you a new-build house that doesn't have Planning Permission is either incompetent or a shyshter and a cowboy. Either way, you don't want to be buying a house from him
Edited by Sam_68 on Thursday 22 October 19:24
Based on what Sam has said for me it would be pretty clear cut:
1/ If the house is accepted as is with no or very minor mods required I would go through with it taking into account that to avoid getting into a row with the developer (but much worse neighbour) you might end up footing the bill for some of it yourself.
2/ if the house needs anything other than minor cosmetics, RUN LIKE FUG.
Either way don't exchange until you know. That way you've got him over a barrel and not t'other way round given that it will no show up on searches and/or he'll have to declare it and you'll be the only buyer still playing.
Please tell me you haven't already exchanged.
1/ If the house is accepted as is with no or very minor mods required I would go through with it taking into account that to avoid getting into a row with the developer (but much worse neighbour) you might end up footing the bill for some of it yourself.
2/ if the house needs anything other than minor cosmetics, RUN LIKE FUG.
Either way don't exchange until you know. That way you've got him over a barrel and not t'other way round given that it will no show up on searches and/or he'll have to declare it and you'll be the only buyer still playing.
Please tell me you haven't already exchanged.
You need to ascertain whether an enforcement notice has been issued to start with. It could be that enforcement action has prompted the retrospective application; any notice should be registered as a land charge and a local search will disclose. Some authorities also list them on their websites as they are public documents.
If an EN has been issued, it will list steps to be taken and failure to comply can give rise to prosecution (Big fines potentially) and the ability for the authority to enter the land and rectify at the landowners cost. The notice runs with the land so if you buy a property subject to an uncomplied with notice, then you buy the problem too. If the LPA do the work in default, the cost can be secured against the land and it is not unknown for forced sales to occur to reclaim the monies. Independent of the notice, the LPA can also injunct and breach of a planning injunction normally results in proceedings to commit to prison.
If the planning application is going to committee, there will be a report and a recommendation that will be a good guide to whether the development is acceptable in planning terms. The committee is not obliged to follow the recommendation but does need good reasons to deviate (not that you'd notice if you've sat through a few).
Two ways of proceeding - either make your purchase contingent on a clean planning title being proved (you could submit a CLEUD application for a certificate of lawfulness if there is doubt), or use the dubious planning history to chip at the price and take a punt on sorting it.
If an EN has been issued, it will list steps to be taken and failure to comply can give rise to prosecution (Big fines potentially) and the ability for the authority to enter the land and rectify at the landowners cost. The notice runs with the land so if you buy a property subject to an uncomplied with notice, then you buy the problem too. If the LPA do the work in default, the cost can be secured against the land and it is not unknown for forced sales to occur to reclaim the monies. Independent of the notice, the LPA can also injunct and breach of a planning injunction normally results in proceedings to commit to prison.
If the planning application is going to committee, there will be a report and a recommendation that will be a good guide to whether the development is acceptable in planning terms. The committee is not obliged to follow the recommendation but does need good reasons to deviate (not that you'd notice if you've sat through a few).
Two ways of proceeding - either make your purchase contingent on a clean planning title being proved (you could submit a CLEUD application for a certificate of lawfulness if there is doubt), or use the dubious planning history to chip at the price and take a punt on sorting it.
havent exchanged, have made it clear we wont until planning issue resolved. Its an incredible house in a great location so i do want it. Have had a very thorough survey done and its (apparently) built to a high standard.
I'm under no illusions about the type of guy he is but he's always been v pleasant to me so thats fine.
The planning officer's reccomendation is that its in keeping and should be allowed with the proviso of one rear window being made opaque (which wouldnt bother us at all).
we'll have to wait for the meeting I guess. Thanks for all input, appreciate the advice (and anymore thats to come)
I'm under no illusions about the type of guy he is but he's always been v pleasant to me so thats fine.
The planning officer's reccomendation is that its in keeping and should be allowed with the proviso of one rear window being made opaque (which wouldnt bother us at all).
we'll have to wait for the meeting I guess. Thanks for all input, appreciate the advice (and anymore thats to come)
Pupp's advice is bang on, but then I'd expect it to be, otherwise I and a few colleagues are b*ggered. 
To elaborate further, although the Local Planning Authority (LPA) have the power to enter land and remedy the situation if needs be, it is far more common for them to seek to work with the party(ies) that have breached legislation in the first place (it saves the LPA money as much as anything else), notwithstanding that they'd be asked questions as to how they'd arrived at prosecution. That the LPA have accepted a retrospective application for consideration, although not conclusive that they'll accept the application by any menas, suggests that they don't view the development as fundamentally flawed, a suggestion further evidenced by the officer's recommendation to committee.
Now, looking at the potential decision of the committee I see this playing out in a number of potential ways:
1) Committee approve the development as built, subject to condition regards obscuring window. Problem resolved to your satisfaction and the house (and you) would not suffer from it having been built prior to grant of approval.
2) Committee approve the development, but with further conditions to remedy further aspects of the development that give cause for concern. Depending on the nature of these, they may hand the officers the power to negotiate such changes. This would not necessarily be a problem, but will obviously depend upon the extent of the changes sought.
3) Committee refuse the application and grant authorisation for enforcement action to be engaged to remedy the breach. See Pupp's advice for how this could play out. However the applicant could still appeal this decision, which would be likely to postpone the commencement of enforcement action pending the resolution of any such appeal. This would delay matters somewhat while the Planning Inspectorate consider the application. At the present time I believe they're taking about 6 months to determine most applications.
Options 1 and 2 would be unlikely to result in massive delays in the grand scheme of things, but this will depend on any conditions attached to an approval.
Option 3 gets very messy and can be a time consuming process. If it goes that route (and option 2 to a certain degree) and you're still interested, then I'd be thinking very hard about what negotiating opportunities this presents me with the builder, given the potential for extra stress arising from the delays (lost buyers, potentially having to rent interim accommodation while you wait it out, etc). Being an opportunist and tight with my money, personally I'd be giving the builder a some food for thought if it goes anywhere near the latter options. After all, you don't ask, you don't get.
To elaborate further, although the Local Planning Authority (LPA) have the power to enter land and remedy the situation if needs be, it is far more common for them to seek to work with the party(ies) that have breached legislation in the first place (it saves the LPA money as much as anything else), notwithstanding that they'd be asked questions as to how they'd arrived at prosecution. That the LPA have accepted a retrospective application for consideration, although not conclusive that they'll accept the application by any menas, suggests that they don't view the development as fundamentally flawed, a suggestion further evidenced by the officer's recommendation to committee.
Now, looking at the potential decision of the committee I see this playing out in a number of potential ways:
1) Committee approve the development as built, subject to condition regards obscuring window. Problem resolved to your satisfaction and the house (and you) would not suffer from it having been built prior to grant of approval.
2) Committee approve the development, but with further conditions to remedy further aspects of the development that give cause for concern. Depending on the nature of these, they may hand the officers the power to negotiate such changes. This would not necessarily be a problem, but will obviously depend upon the extent of the changes sought.
3) Committee refuse the application and grant authorisation for enforcement action to be engaged to remedy the breach. See Pupp's advice for how this could play out. However the applicant could still appeal this decision, which would be likely to postpone the commencement of enforcement action pending the resolution of any such appeal. This would delay matters somewhat while the Planning Inspectorate consider the application. At the present time I believe they're taking about 6 months to determine most applications.
Options 1 and 2 would be unlikely to result in massive delays in the grand scheme of things, but this will depend on any conditions attached to an approval.
Option 3 gets very messy and can be a time consuming process. If it goes that route (and option 2 to a certain degree) and you're still interested, then I'd be thinking very hard about what negotiating opportunities this presents me with the builder, given the potential for extra stress arising from the delays (lost buyers, potentially having to rent interim accommodation while you wait it out, etc). Being an opportunist and tight with my money, personally I'd be giving the builder a some food for thought if it goes anywhere near the latter options. After all, you don't ask, you don't get.
really appreciate the valuable advice, thank you.
Its tricky, i'd like to chip him on the price, he doesnt even seem to realise (or maybe just doesnt care) how much he's inconveniencing us & how pi$$ed off we are that he blatantly lied to us..
The problem lies in 2 areas..
1. he will potentially be our neighbour & i'd like to keep him onside.
2. he strikes me as the tye of bloke who will just say f*** off and decide to not sell to us at all. (and there were many other interested parties who bid close to what we did)
Its tricky, i'd like to chip him on the price, he doesnt even seem to realise (or maybe just doesnt care) how much he's inconveniencing us & how pi$$ed off we are that he blatantly lied to us..
The problem lies in 2 areas..
1. he will potentially be our neighbour & i'd like to keep him onside.
2. he strikes me as the tye of bloke who will just say f*** off and decide to not sell to us at all. (and there were many other interested parties who bid close to what we did)
The question you have to ask yourself is how much is it p*ssing you off and what are the financial consequences to you for his error (accidental or deliberate)?
If you can realistically put a figure to your inconvenience in the matter, than he'd have to be a pretty unreasonable individual to not even consider it in the interests of fairness (I'm not saying he'd be under obligation to agree with you).
If he were to dismiss any reasonable argument for renegotiation out of hand or become agressive as a result of it, I'd be asking myself whether he was likely to be a problem neighbour in the future, regardless. While I can understand that you don't want to un-necessarily annoy him, it's a two-way street, it would just be that you'd end up being the disgruntled party.
If you can realistically put a figure to your inconvenience in the matter, than he'd have to be a pretty unreasonable individual to not even consider it in the interests of fairness (I'm not saying he'd be under obligation to agree with you).
If he were to dismiss any reasonable argument for renegotiation out of hand or become agressive as a result of it, I'd be asking myself whether he was likely to be a problem neighbour in the future, regardless. While I can understand that you don't want to un-necessarily annoy him, it's a two-way street, it would just be that you'd end up being the disgruntled party.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff