Missing planning permission

Doozergirl

slightlychilled wrote: »

Some posters have tried to help but not you. You have some agenda known only to yourself so kindly don't reply anymore.
I appreciate regulars on this forum use phrases and terminology that is obvious to each other, but to someone like me who has no knowledge of these things, it is very confusing.

I have gleaned so far that I need, 2 indemnity policies, one for council (covenant) consent and one for planning permission.The worst case scenario is that the council demolishes the garage and the indemnity policy reverts the area to garden and reimburses for loss in re-sale value.
Can it get any worse that that ?
If that is the worst that can happen, I have no issues with that.

The comments to each Penny are unjustified.

Your worst case scenario will never happen, so it isn't the worst case scenario. I can't fathom how this view hasn't changed from the beginning of the thread.

Everyone that has posted has tried to help and Each Penny has picked up on something that others didn't.

I appreciate it might be confusing, but it might be less so if you studied links provided etc. to help with what is primarily an issue that pops up here on a daily basis. The problem isn't the advice.

It is ultimately your responsibility to understand what you are getting into.

EachPenny

lincroft1710 wrote: »

The OP had stated in his first post that the garage had been erected by a previous owner, not the person he was buying from. Therefore there was a good chance the garage would be more than 4 years old. Hence I said "most likely" not "definitely".

Over the years I have seen countless garages and extensions without pp, none have ever been the subject of a subsequent planning enforcement.

Hi lincroft1710. I meant to reply to your post earlier but got distracted by something else. On reflection I felt the way I worded my post was rather harsh on you and for that I apologise.

However, the point I was making remains valid. We have no idea whether the OP's vendor is telling the truth when they say it was built by a previous owner, or indeed that the vendor has even claimed such a thing. My guess, which I'm probably not alone in, is that the date range 1982-2009 relates to the previous ownership.

As davidmcn tried to explore, but was 'snapped at', this date range is of no help when trying to give advice. If the OP couldn't narrow it down to say 2005-2009 then how confident can we be that it wasn't built 2009-2014? And then we are into the range of less than 4 years ago.

There is also the issue of 'substantial completion' and of subsequent modifications. A bloke in the pub might say "I built it 5 years ago" but not think it relevant that the roof wasn't finished until the following summer. Or perhaps the vendor might have changed the flat roof for a pitched one a couple of years ago, even though it was 'built' by the last owner. All of this is relevant to planning law - a precise history of the building needs to be established - with evidence if possible - before assuming that it is more than 4 years old and therefore ok.

Planning departments don't have plans of buildings constructed without consent or under PD. But they do have documents that might show the non-existence of a building at a certain date and resources which allow them to identify approximately when changes or additions have been made. All of that can be done without leaving the desk... which is a good thing because most of them are too busy drinking tea and coffee to go prowling round the neighbourhood looking for unauthorised development

I've seen many garages and extensions subject to planning enforcement, even whole blocks of flats. Maybe we just know about different areas of the country, or have access to different information?

slightlychilled

"If the OP couldn't narrow it down to say 2005-2009 then how confident can we be that it wasn't built 2009-2014? And then we are into the range of less than 4 years ago."

The garage was most defintely not built after 2009 as I stated.
I really don't appreciate you accusing me of lying. What is wrong with you ? Why are you back here trying to confuse the issue yet again with unnecessary comments ?

Doozergirl

EachPenny wrote: »

Hi lincroft1710. I meant to reply to your post earlier but got distracted by something else. On reflection I felt the way I worded my post was rather harsh on you and for that I apologise.

However, the point I was making remains valid. We have no idea whether the OP's vendor is telling the truth when they say it was built by a previous owner, or indeed that the vendor has even claimed such a thing. My guess, which I'm probably not alone in, is that the date range 1982-2009 relates to the previous ownership.

As davidmcn tried to explore, but was 'snapped at', this date range is of no help when trying to give advice. If the OP couldn't narrow it down to say 2005-2009 then how confident can we be that it wasn't built 2009-2014? And then we are into the range of less than 4 years ago.

There is also the issue of 'substantial completion' and of subsequent modifications. A bloke in the pub might say "I built it 5 years ago" but not think it relevant that the roof wasn't finished until the following summer. Or perhaps the vendor might have changed the flat roof for a pitched one a couple of years ago, even though it was 'built' by the last owner. All of this is relevant to planning law - a precise history of the building needs to be established - with evidence if possible - before assuming that it is more than 4 years old and therefore ok.

Planning departments don't have plans of buildings constructed without consent or under PD. But they do have documents that might show the non-existence of a building at a certain date and resources which allow them to identify approximately when changes or additions have been made. All of that can be done without leaving the desk... which is a good thing because most of them are too busy drinking tea and coffee to go prowling round the neighbourhood looking for unauthorised development

I've seen many garages and extensions subject to planning enforcement, even whole blocks of flats. Maybe we just know about different areas of the country, or have access to different information?

Google Earth is everybody's friend. It has backdated images. As does streetview.

We don't need hearsay. It's quite easy to check back, especially just four years.

EachPenny

slightlychilled wrote: »

The garage was most defintely not built after 2009 as I stated.

If you have evidence of that it would have been useful to hear it in the early part of this thread. You are also still missing the point that it isn't just about when it was 'built'. It is about 'substantial completion' and also whether any modifications have been made subsequently.

slightlychilled wrote: »

I really don't appreciate you accusing me of lying. What is wrong with you ? Why are you back here trying to confuse the issue yet again with unnecessary comments ?

I was back to apologise to lincroft1710 and to explain to them, and anyone else interested, why going from "The current seller did not build it." to "It is most likely too late for the council to do anything about it" is a massive leap of faith, and not really justified. Especially from the perspective of someone intending to purchase a property who should be looking out for reasons not to buy, or to ensure appropriate indemnity, rather than justifying someone else's previous actions.

I think as a result of the discussion we have now established that in fact the council almost certainly can do something about it, and is probably able to do it in perpetuity unless the covenant has a time limit on it. Whether the council decides to do something is an entirely different question, which nobody on here can answer. That's why you've been advised to seek professional help.

Finally, I did not accuse you of lying.

EachPenny

Doozergirl wrote: »

Google Earth is everybody's friend. It has backdated images. As does streetview.

I disagree, it isn't the friend of unlawful developers

Some authorities began using (and archiving) high quality digital aerial pictures from the mid-1990's. I remember using images of 50cm and sometimes even 30cm resolution as far back as 1997. Certainly good enough to spot the sudden appearance of a garage in someone's garden - unless it is under a tree.

Doozergirl

EachPenny wrote: »

If you have evidence of that it would have been useful to hear it in the early part of this thread. You are also still missing the point that it isn't just about when it was 'built'. It is about 'substantial completion' and also whether any modifications have been made subsequently.



I was back to apologise to lincroft1710 and to explain to them, and anyone else interested, why going from "The current seller did not build it." to "It is most likely too late for the council to do anything about it" is a massive leap of faith, and not really justified. Especially from the perspective of someone intending to purchase a property who should be looking out for reasons not to buy, or to ensure appropriate indemnity, rather than justifying someone else's previous actions.

I think as a result of the discussion we have now established that in fact the council almost certainly can do something about it, and is probably able to do it in perpetuity unless the covenant has a time limit on it. Whether the council decides to do something is an entirely different question, which nobody on here can answer. That's why you've been advised to seek professional help.

Finally, I did not accuse you of lying.

You're splitting hairs.

It is absolutely possible for most people to make an assessment to decide if something was 'definitely' built, completed or substantially altered before a date, especially where that date is recent and especially where it is a simple garage.

We can and should give the OP the benefit of the doubt to decide for themselves if they are sure.