planning permission on our conversion?

Doozergirl

Well, the solicitor probably won't - indemnity insurance should satisfy the lender and the fact that your buyer is your tenant must mean that he doesn't mind the quality of it.

I'm sure you'll be fine.

planning_officer

danielanthony wrote: »

Its a change of use of the building. I just bought a house where the garage is 'converted' into an office, but as the garage door is still attached the conversion is seen as temporary as it would be quick/easy to park a car in there (as if) so no change of use request to the council required. This came up in our Homebuyers Survey. So I guess its how permanent the conversion is really.

Mmm not really true! No such thing as a 'temporary conversion'!

Basically, a garage conversion is not development (and does not require planning permission), unless there is a condition attached to the planning permission for when it was originally built, restricting it to be used for parking only. Then, it requires planning permission to remove the condition. There is no change of use involved - it was residential before the conversion and still is afterwards, even if used as a home office. If you convert a garage that has a restrictive condition attached, without first obtaining planning permission, then you are in breach of the condition.

Richard_Webster

I completely agree with what Doozergirl says. Do not contact the Council about the Building Regs. Your solicitor should be able to organise an indemnity policy quite cheaply.

As Planning_Officer says, you will need to check if there is a planning condition preventing the use of the garage other than as a garage. This is possible in houses built from the 1980s onwards particularly on estates where there the narrow roads to slow traffic and little on street parking. If you do not have a copy of the planning permission simply request a copy (without saying why) from the Council - they will charge about £20 for it.

If there is such a condition, then the work is not immune from enforcement until 10 years have elapsed. Otherwise the "change of use" did not require permission (because it is not a "change of use" in Planning Law, which looks at the overall use as a dwelling), or to the extent that the outside of the building was altered and that required permission, is now immune, 4 years having elapsed.

desperate_now

Can anyone help me with my dilemma. Already mentioned that we bought our house in 1967 where an extension already existed which is now our kitchen. We have the buyers from hell who have continually messed us about for the last 6 months, so at a very low ebb now, tearful infact.
In 1967 when we bought the property no plans were given, it proved no problem at the time, a mortgage was offered. As we cannot provide plans now our buyers solicitor asked us to take out an indemnity. Yesterday as we were sure it was built pre plans (1948) or if indeed they were applied for by previous owners reluctantly I agreed. I was told it would cost £49. Too small a sum to argue about.
As we have already bent over backwards and turned upside down for our buyers we decided this morning to enquire at our local council.We found proof that it was accepted in 1953 but copies for each document would be £20 each but we were able to view them all on microfiche. The assistant kindly copied for a small fee on an A4 sheet drawings and one had 2 stamps one of which said permisision granted on 12 June 1953.
Heres my question - We took these to our solicitor who was quite nasty and said we were too late as she had told the buyers solicitor we would take out an indemnity. (No contracts of exchange been done yet by the way) She said plans should be with the deeds. I said but in 1967 things were not so strict. she replied things are different now and they should be.
But surely as we can now provide evidence of their existence there is no need to take out the indemnity. - whether she has written to the buyers solicitor or not.
I can also offer application and consent dates and plan nos.
Surely the indemnity is not to insure that we simply do not have the plans but to ensure the buildings safety.
I believe my solicitor is trying to be awkward as she has already written her letter - anyone know how I stand with this.
Thanks in advance.

Richard_Webster

If you can now produce the permissions I can't see why the indemnity would be needed and the buyer's solicitors will prefer to see the plans. Just tell your solicitor to tell the other side you now have the plans.

desperate_now

Thanks for that Richard and I understand that but we dont have copies of the plans as we were told today it would cost £20 per sheet and there were several so we did not buy them, however we got a small A4 copy of 1 drawing only which had a stamp on saying permission granted in 1953. I thought we only had to prove they existed you see.
Now just spoke to my estate agent who tells me their solicitor will want copies which will cost us a lot of money now and I can no longer go down the indemnity route because apparently I would have to swear I did not know of the plans existence.
AND I understand he has just asked for the buyers to come in to sign exchange contracts. So all in all have I made it worse - I dont sell houses everyday.
Is this correct

Richard_Webster

Yes, you will have to pay for the copies.

Buyer's solicitor will want to see them so that his clients don't have to pay to produce them/buy indemnity insurance when they sell.

desperate_now

There were lots of pages, so just rang planning and she saidI will only need the decision notice. Is that corect

Richard_Webster

so just rang planning and she saidI will only need the decision notice. Is that corect

Don't confuse Planning & Building Regs!

Although Buyer's solicitors may want to see copy of permissions under planning that isn't the issue because anything that old will be immune from any Planning Enforcement.

Under Building Regs the position is fuzzy and because of that we often have to go through this business of providing indemnity policies - not available here if it building regs that are the real issue. The paper permission should be sufficient. Solicitors don't normally want the plans - they are just too much clutter and some councils will say they are copyright to the original architect who drew them up!

desperate_now

The business gets more confusing.
According to my solicitor, and I know you would not want to go against her says the documents should be with the deeds.
Rather than purchase all these documents from my council at great cost can I still opt to take out the indemnity Richard.
That is really it you have been most helpful.