PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.

Live/Work Unit: Condition in Lease

I am trying to buy a flat designated as a Live/Work unit. The lease says it cannot be used either wholly residentially or wholly for business (B1) purposes. My solicitor is insisting the seller get planning permission to re-zone it, and have the lease varied. He says that I could be forced to sell the flat if the council slap an enforcement notice on me. Or that the lease could be forfeited by the landlord because I am in breach.
Catastrophic as these situations both are, are either of them likely? If my mortgage lender is happy to lend, should I just plough on and sort this out myself at a later date? I am concerned that the seller may abandon the sale due to the cost or time to sort this out.
«13

Comments

  • davidmcn
    davidmcn Posts: 23,596
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    I presume your solicitor isn't going to sign it off for your lender without both planning and the lease being varied, so "just ploughing on" is unlikely to be an option.

    Is the council likely to grant the planning permission? (e.g. has this happened for any of the neighbours?)
  • Two of the neighbours in a block of 50 have been granted planning permission. I don't know if any more people applied and were turned down. I'd say it's do-able. The issue is more the time (and whether the seller proves unwilling to do it). The seller's solicitors are exceptionally slow and useless. It's taken 6 weeks for them to reply to his first letter, which concerned this issue, and we still haven't had the standard property forms.
  • davidmcn
    davidmcn Posts: 23,596
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    thenpaking wrote: »
    Two of the neighbours in a block of 50 have been granted planning permission. I don't know if any more people applied and were turned down.
    You should be able to check on the council's website - which may also give you clues about the policies they're applying for such applications.
  • I've had a look at the documentation for those two, and they are both very brief. Both mention that the flats "have been used for residential purposes for a period of more than four years prior to the date of this application, and are therefore lawful within the meaning of Section 191(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)".
    I'd be in the same position as the seller has inhabited the flat for 5 years purely residentially. It looks like a box ticking exercise. But they both took 2 months to be completed.
    What I am confused about is this: why would my solicitor refuse to sign it off, rather than bringing the risk to my attention, if the likelihood of this is low, and the resolution seems straightforward, probably not that costly, but just time consuming?
  • davidmcn
    davidmcn Posts: 23,596
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    Standard residential mortgage products are based on the risks being low, and lenders don't want to knowingly take on a situation where there appears to be an existing breach of planning. Even if it's merely time-consuming to resolve, that costs them money if they've already repossessed.
  • I see. So in your opinion there really is no other option but to get the planning permission? I suppose they'd better get on with it then....
  • davidmcn
    davidmcn Posts: 23,596
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    thenpaking wrote: »
    So in your opinion there really is no other option but to get the planning permission?
    Yes. You're trying to buy a house which doesn't have planning permission to be used as a house. Even if you weren't getting a mortgage, you'd really want it sorted before committed yourself to the purchase.

    Was this marketed as having live-work consent or has it come as a last minute surprise to everyone?
  • One more thing: my broker has looked at the documentation from the lender, and he reckons they are fine with Live/Work units. I would also likely meet the requirements, as I have a small business (that's not just professional services), which would be run from the flat (without visitors, noise etc). How can I know that my solicitor is not blowing this up out of all proportion?
    I should also say, Thanks for your replies!
  • To your question: no it wasn't marketed as having Live/Work consent. Once this was brought to my attention, I checked out the history of the development, and adverts for other sales in the building and they were marketed like this. This may be because the seller has done it through Purplebricks, and they didn't do their due diligence.
  • Cakeguts
    Cakeguts Posts: 7,627
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Was the price cheaper than non Live/Work units of the same size in the same area?
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 606.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.7K Life & Family
  • 247.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards