Should this have come up on the searches?

Smeagal

In the next couple of days we were about to exchange for a completion date of the 10th November, today someone local told me they are building a housing estate directly opposite the house I am buying and the plans have been approved and are on the council website.

When I told my solicitor she was suprised and told me the buyer had ticked the box next to NO he wasn't aware of any development on the legal forms, so I checked the council website application and he is named as someone who was consulted, there may even be an objection letter from him.

Now the seller not declaring that he knew is not the issue anymore as I have pulled out, my issue is the searches, should these not have identified there was a housing estate going to be built directly across the road? The searches were done nearly 2 months ago and reported no problems, the application went in end of 2008.

My solicitor (I call her a solicitor she's just a conveyenser) tells me checking local building developments is not done as part of the searches.

Doesn't seem right to me, what if there was a tip being built opposite or a motorway, surely buyers have to be told these things.

Yorkie1

I think your conveyancer is right. The searches don't include such matters.

timmyt

Smeagal wrote: »

In the next couple of days we were about to exchange for a completion date of the 10th November, today someone local told me they are building a housing estate directly opposite the house I am buying and the plans have been approved and are on the council website.

When I told my solicitor she was suprised and told me the buyer had ticked the box next to NO he wasn't aware of any development on the legal forms, so I checked the council website application and he is named as someone who was consulted, there may even be an objection letter from him.

Now the seller not declaring that he knew is not the issue anymore as I have pulled out, my issue is the searches, should these not have identified there was a housing estate going to be built directly across the road? [COLOR="rgb(46, 139, 87)"]NO, sorry, they are confined to the property, but we always say if a Buyer wants a search of up to 100m of the vicinity then a PlanningSearch can be done [/COLOR]The searches were done nearly 2 months ago and reported no problems, the application went in end of 2008.

My solicitor (I call her a solicitor she's just a conveyenser seems to be the case more and more, yet they charge the same as an actual solicitor...naughty) tells me checking local building developments is not done as part of the searches. [COLOR="rgb(0, 100, 0)"]correct[/COLOR]

Doesn't seem right to me, what if there was a tip being built opposite or a motorway, surely buyers have to be told these things.

did you not spot something opposite when you viewed? empty lot, derelict lot etc

kentmum1973

I disagree. This should have totally come up on the searches. I was sent a list of all planning applications withign 200 metres. And the seller should certainly have made it clear he was aware of this.

timmyt

kentmum1973 wrote: »

I disagree. This should have totally come up on the searches. I was sent a list of all planning applications withign 200 metres. And the seller should certainly have made it clear he was aware of this.

you are wrong. you may have received what you say, but it does not come up as standard in searches....unless the Local Authority adds it in their search free of charge, very rare indeed. it is logical why it does not, as where do you stop on radius.

Richard_Webster

Quote:
Originally Posted by kentmum1973
I disagree. This should have totally come up on the searches. I was sent a list of all planning applications withign 200 metres. And the seller should certainly have made it clear he was aware of this.
you are wrong. you may have received what you say, but it does not come up as standard in searches....unless the Local Authority adds it in their search free of charge, very rare indeed. it is logical why it does not, as where do you stop on radius.

I agree with TimmyT.

You can do a further Plans Search which, while never entirely up to date, does give more information about nearby planning decisions. I do this one as matter of routine, but it makes the figures I give poeple for the cost of searches higher than average so I give clients the option not to have it done. It is certainly not a standard search.

This issue comes up so often that any conveyancer worth his salt will include an explanation that the local search will not give information about nearby proposed development in his standard report letters.

WhiteHorse

I would certainly expect current or proposed planning permissions to be included. These are not minor issues.

Smeagal

timmyt wrote: »

did you not spot something opposite when you viewed? empty lot, derelict lot etc

There's a college opposite which part of is being demolished and the rest turned into apartments, then the college car park and surrounding fields are due to have houses built on them.

It seems the seller "forget" that they were doing this and failed to declare it on the legal forms.

Norfolkbroad_3

No good to the OP who has pulled out, but there are certain similarities to Morgan vs Pooley (can't yet post a link, but Google will find it) that may be helpful to anyone in a similar situation after exchange/completion.

The outcome is enough to stop most purchasers suing their vendors, and to hopefully encourage them to have additional extended searches before exchange...

dancingfairy

I don't know as I have never bought a house but I would presume that what you get is a basic service (ie they don't check planning applications for opposite the house/down the road etc) and sadly that it is 'buyer beware' and that it is up to you to ask the right questions.
Sorry
df