Help! Community Infrastructure Levy applied to the wrong house..?

JigglyPug

Looking for some advice, any help would be appreciated! We're in the process of buying a Victorian terrace but upon return of our searches, some weird information has shown up.

Basically, the house we're buying (Number 43) is next door to an old shop building (Number 45) which has been converted into 2 houses and a flat. For some reason, our searches have returned information on the land registry that seems to pertain to the converted building next door. This wouldn't necessarily be an issue however, this new development next door has had a 'Community Infrastructure Levy' raised against it which, it would appear, has also been incorrectly applied to our house on the land registry.

Basically, we want to know how this affects us. Is this simply a mistake on the land registry or will it actually lead to us being charged for the levy? Do I just go back to our solicitor and get him to correct this before exchange? How easy is it to get the land registry to correct these things - do I even stand a chance of getting it altered?

I would appreciate any advice because prior to today, I didn't even know 'Community Infrastructure Levies' existed!

anselld

CIL is a Planning Charge levied by the Council when new dwellings or significant additional floor space are created. As far as I know it has nothing to do with Land Registry.

Presumaby it has showed up in Local Searches (ie the Council). It should refer to the planning application which created the CIL and you can then see if that planning application relates to your property. The Council should be able to confirm if the CIL obligation has been discharged.

JigglyPug

Thanks for the reply! Sorry, I thought it was listed on the land registry but you're right and it was part of the council searches. I'll go back to our solicitor tomorrow and ask him to get in touch with the council about the specific planning application.

eddddy

Was some land belonging to Number 43 sold to Number 45 in order to do the development?

That would explain why the owner(s) of Number 43 was party to the CIL.


In any case, my understanding is that it's specifically the people who sign the agreement who are liable to pay the levy. You would not become liable as a result of buying the property.

Fuzzyness

has the house next door actually been converted into the two flats? if so the charge will probably have been paid by the developer and therefore discharged their responsibilities and there should be no comeback on you. if the house hasnt been converted yet the charge wont have been paid and you seek to clarify that it doesnt apply to the property you are purchasing as per the suggestion anselld above.

JigglyPug

Was some land belonging to Number 43 sold to Number 45 in order to do the development?

That would explain why the owner(s) of Number 43 was party to the CIL.


In any case, my understanding is that it's specifically the people who sign the agreement who are liable to pay the levy. You would not become liable as a result of buying the property.

Thanks for your reply, that's really eased my mind! I can't say for certain but I don't think number 43 could have sold land to the property. The building for number 45 sits right on the boundary between the two properties and runs the full length of the plot so to have sold any property to number 45, they'd have to have literally moved the building?

has the house next door actually been converted into the two flats? if so the charge will probably have been paid by the developer and therefore discharged their responsibilities and there should be no comeback on you. if the house hasnt been converted yet the charge wont have been paid and you seek to clarify that it doesnt apply to the property you are purchasing as per the suggestion anselld above.

Thanks for your reply, this has also eased my mind! Yes, the property next door was converted in the early 2000s so it would seem the CIL should have already been paid by the developer. I'm just waiting for my solicitor to call me back so we can discuss this and get everything sorted out but both of you have been so helpful, thank you!

eddddy

JigglyPug wrote: »

Thanks for your reply, that's really eased my mind! I can't say for certain but I don't think number 43 could have sold land to the property. The building for number 45 sits right on the boundary between the two properties and runs the full length of the plot so to have sold any property to number 45, they'd have to have literally moved the building?

So Number 45 sits right up to the current boundary with number 43.

As you say, you cannot buy a piece of your neighbour's land and move your building onto that land.

But you can buy a piece of your neighbour's land and build an extension that extends over the piece of land you bought. (Which would be the reason for buying the land.)


But obviously, I can't see the buildings or land, so I may be misunderstanding.

In any case, it's not really important. It might just help explain the history.

JigglyPug

So Number 45 sits right up to the current boundary with number 43.

As you say, you cannot buy a piece of your neighbour's land and move your building onto that land.

But you can buy a piece of your neighbour's land and build an extension that extends over the piece of land you bought. (Which would be the reason for buying the land.)


But obviously, I can't see the buildings or land, so I may be misunderstanding.

In any case, it's not really important. It might just help explain the history.

There aren't any extensions at number 45 and number 43 appears to retain its original boundaries so I don't think it's possible that they could have bought land from number 43 and then extended onto it. It's a mystery

teneighty

JigglyPug wrote: »

Thanks for your reply, that's really eased my mind! I can't say for certain but I don't think number 43 could have sold land to the property. The building for number 45 sits right on the boundary between the two properties and runs the full length of the plot so to have sold any property to number 45, they'd have to have literally moved the building?



Thanks for your reply, this has also eased my mind! Yes, the property next door was converted in the early 2000s so it would seem the CIL should have already been paid by the developer. I'm just waiting for my solicitor to call me back so we can discuss this and get everything sorted out but both of you have been so helpful, thank you!

CIL only came into affect in 2010 so that does not seem possible. Is there a planning permission in place to redevelop the plot the house sits on? Otherwise it could just be an administrative error.

JigglyPug

teneighty wrote: »

CIL only came into affect in 2010 so that does not seem possible. Is there a planning permission in place to redevelop the plot the house sits on? Otherwise it could just be an administrative error.

That's even weirder, then This is specifically what the searches showed in relation to the building proposals and CIL: http://imgur.com/a/Lovmt

Don't suppose you're able to decipher what they mean from those pictures?

spidereyes

The link you've posted just shows the area is subject to the community infrastructure levy, not that your specific house is liable for any notices.