Retrospective Planning Permission and Buidling Regulations

Valkyrie888

Retrospective Planning Application and Building Regulations

My wife and I are looking at purchasing a small holding in rural Pembrokeshire; the property consists of a 3 bedroom house, a detached self-contained annex and a range of outbuildings. I believe that the annex has been used as family accommodation since 1987 and then subsequently let on an informal basis but does not have formal planning consent. I understand that under section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the local authority can only take enforcement action within four years of completion of any work which has been carried out without permission and so a retrospective planning application can be sought.

Issue. If retrospective planning permission was granted; would the building have to comply with the most recent building regulations?


Furthermore.....Does the structural condition of the building effect the chances of the property being awarded retrospective planning permission?


Any guidance or advice would be much appreciated.

EachPenny

Valkyrie888 wrote: »

My wife and I are looking at purchasing a small holding in rural Pembrokeshire; the property consists of a 3 bedroom house, a detached self-contained annex and a range of outbuildings. I believe that the annex has been used as family accommodation since 1987 and then subsequently let on an informal basis but does not have formal planning consent. I understand that under section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the local authority can only take enforcement action within four years of completion of any work which has been carried out without permission and so a retrospective planning application can be sought.

I think in your situation it would be more likely that a request would need to be made for a certificate of lawful development rather than an application for retrospective consent. But that might depend on exactly what your plans are, and when the 'informal' letting began.

The four year period you quote is also not a hard and fast rule. There is an emerging body of case-law in the area of deliberate concealment. This means a planning authority could still take action if there are grounds for them to believe the owner/occupier has done something with the deliberate intention of concealing the development from the authorities. A recent example involved a family converting a garage into a separate dwelling and it was held that because the building retained the appearance of a garage, then deliberate concealment applied.

If the 'annex' you are looking at retains an external appearance of an outbuilding, then this is the area of planning law you need to investigate very closely.

I'd also say that 'informal letting' would ring alarm bells for me. Why was it not formalised? Is the annex treated as a separate dwelling with separate utility connections and council tax bills? Is it possible that the letting has resulted in a HMO situation?

Another aspect is whether there were conditions or covenants relating to the original house that preclude the use of the annex as habitable accommodation, let alone as a separate dwelling. The word 'smallholding' also is a red flag as these often come with this kind of condition attached.

Valkyrie888 wrote: »

Issue. If retrospective planning permission was granted; would the building have to comply with the most recent building regulations?

Planning Consent and Building Regulations are separate issues. Separate enforcement routes (and time limits) apply, so even if planning consent isn't required, it doesn't necessarily mean the Council won't look at action on the BR route. It is likely that planning issues will be the greater problem though.

Valkyrie888 wrote: »

Furthermore.....Does the structural condition of the building effect the chances of the property being awarded retrospective planning permission?

This is only likely to be an issue if you are in a conservation area or the building is listed. Minor structural issues have no effect on planning, but if major works are required to overcome structural defects then this might be a problem. For example, if additional windows are required for the building to be habitable then this would only be possible if planning consent can be obtained. Conversely, in some cases, a change of use which results in a building being sensitively restored may be looked on favourably.

The primary issue is the approach the Council takes to new housing provision in that location. If it is an area where new dwellings are not normally permitted (sometimes referred to as being "outside the development envelope") then it is unlikely that consent would be given for a use which sees the building occupied as a separate dwelling (i.e. let out). It really comes down to the attitude of the Planning Authority - and it has to be said of your potential new neighbours. If they are likely to kick up a fuss then it is far more likely for the Council to feel the need to take any action it still can.

Valkyrie888

Dear EachPenny,



Thank you for the comprehensive response.

BLUF: I want to lower my offer by £30-£40K to reflect the annex’s condition and planning status; but I need to understandthe ins and outs of building regulations in relation to retrospective planningconsent so that I can provide a comprehensive case to the vendor (who has ananswer for everything).

Update: I’ve spoken to a Council Development Control department and they’ve stated that when a building is assessed for ‘regularisation’ (retrospective building regulations consent), the building regulations at thetime the development was built apply; in this case the annex was converted in1987, so the building regulations as at 1987 would be the criteria that had tobe met – not the present day standards.

Annex Background. The vendor is marketing theproperty as having a detached bungalow annex providing an additional source ofincome; the reality is the annex is a converted cow shed with a corrugated asbestos roof with no insulation and with a crude internal layout. The tenantis the previous owner of the farm, who has lived there for 15 or so years from £350 pcm. It is not declared to the council, so the tenant does not pay council tax. The annex has a separate oil tank and electricity runs through asmart meter from the farm's mains and the vendor charges the tenant based onthe smart meter readings. Water is sourced from a borehole and sewerage is via a cesspit/sceptic tank.

AskingPrice. The vendor's asking price reflects hisassumption/insistence that the annex would get planning granted as a formality due to the length of time that has elapsed since it was converted. He initially stated the annex had planning but when pressed, he confirmed that it did not have planning. On initially raising the issue with the vendor,he said that if he were to declare the annex to the council and planning is approved, the value of the property will increase and so will the asking price! The vendor is keen to retain the status quo whereby the annex remains undeclared and can be classified as an asset of sorts.

In response to yourcomments and questions:

"I think in your situation it would be morelikely that a request would need to be made for a certificate of lawfuldevelopment rather than an application for retrospective consent. But thatmight depend on exactly what your plans are, and when the 'informal' letting began."

I think takingyour advice onboard, I would request that the vendor apply for a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) and if he refused, I would lower the offer. If he were to apply for an LDC, I would request for the annex to be endorsed as a self-contained annex for residential letting. The informal letting commenced inthe early 2000’s.

The four year period you quote is also not ahard and fast rule. There is an emerging body of case-law in the area ofdeliberate concealment. This means a planning authority could still take actionif there are grounds for them to believe the owner/occupier has done somethingwith the deliberate intention of concealing the development from theauthorities. A recent example involved a family converting a garage into aseparate dwelling and it was held that because the building retained theappearance of a garage, then deliberate concealment applied.

If the 'annex' you are looking at retains an external appearance of anoutbuilding, then this is the area of planning law you need to investigate veryclosely.

In an aerial photograph, the annexlooks like a shed/feed store with a sloping asbestos roof and rendered blockwalls. There are windows on the gable ends and on the east face. I think the original roof was retained for ease rather than camouflage.

I'd also say that 'informal letting' would ring alarmbells for me. Why was it not formalised? Is the annex treated as a separatedwelling with separate utility connections and council tax bills? Is itpossible that the letting has resulted in a HMO situation?

As mentioned in the annex background, the previous owner and current vendor did not declare the annex tothe council and have not paid council tax etc – Pembrokeshire is like the Wild West....there’s no laws. The annex is a separate building to the main dwelling and utilises a mixture of utility connections. No HMO situation.

Another aspect is whether there were conditions orcovenants relating to the original house that preclude the use of the annex ashabitable accommodation, let alone as a separate dwelling. The word'smallholding' also is a red flag as these often come with this kind ofcondition attached.

The building would have beena designated farm building, and obviously no change of use would have been submitted.

Planning Consent and Building Regulationsare separate issues. Separate enforcement routes (and time limits) apply, soeven if planning consent isn't required, it doesn't necessarily mean theCouncil won't look at action on the BR route. It is likely that planning issueswill be the greater problem though.

Acknowledged. I have a feeling it would be rejectedon both counts.

This is only likely to be an issue if you are in aconservation area or the building is listed. Minor structural issues have noeffect on planning, but if major works are required to overcome structuraldefects then this might be a problem. For example, if additional windows arerequired for the building to be habitable then this would only be possible ifplanning consent can be obtained. Conversely, in some cases, a change of usewhich results in a building being sensitively restored may be looked onfavourably.

The primary issue is the approach the Council takes to new housing provision inthat location. If it is an area where new dwellings are not normally permitted(sometimes referred to as being "outside the development envelope")then it is unlikely that consent would be given for a use which sees thebuilding occupied as a separate dwelling (i.e. let out). It really comes downto the attitude of the Planning Authority - and it has to be said of yourpotential new neighbours. If they are likely to kick up a fuss then it is farmore likely for the Council to feel the need to take any action it still can.

I think major work would be required; it’s a block built barn with a ‘Pembrokeshire foundation’ (nofoundation or footings).

I’ve viewed thePembrokeshire Development Plan and there is no clear development envelope nearthe property.

Thank you so much for youradvice and guidance. Much appreciated.

Valkyrie

silvercar

On initially raising the issue with the vendor,he said that if he were to declare the annex to the council and planning is approved, the value of the property will increase and so will the asking price!

So why isn't the vendor doing exactly that?

Smells fishy to me.

EachPenny

silvercar wrote: »

So why isn't the vendor doing exactly that?

Smells fishy to me.

If it is being 'let' as a separate dwelling then the council should have been notified for Council Tax purposes in addition to any planning and BC requirements (fish number 1). By the sound of it the building is not fit to be let as a separate dwelling (fish number 2). An 'informal' arrangement like this probably involves an exchange of cash which might be unknown to the authorities (fish number 3). The electricity supply coming through the farm could likewise raise questions (fish number 4).

I suspect going to the council and saying the 'cowshed' has been lived in as a dwelling for many years, "can I now regularise the DC and BC situation?" would lead to a whole host of further questions which would stir up massive amounts of something that smells (but not of fish) and is often found in liberal quantities in cowsheds

What I don't understand is why the vendor has allowed the property to be marketed with the description it has without getting the situation regularised first. If you've done something dodgy it doesn't normally make sense to advertise the fact.

Valkyrie888

Silvercar - couldn't agree more. I think that based on the advice from EachPenny, the vendor would probably not get a LCD as the annex is a barn with carpets. I believe that the vendor knows this but is trying to squeeze every penny he can out of the place as he is retiring. As I am not clued up on planning, I am building a good foundation of knowledge through forums, research and liaison with planning authorities so that I can produce a business case for the vendor and hopefully drop the price.

EachPenny

Valkyrie888 wrote: »

Retrospective Planning Application and Building Regulations

My wife and I are looking at purchasing a small holding in rural Pembrokeshire; the property consists of a 3 bedroom house, a detached self-contained annex and a range of outbuildings. I believe that the annex has been used as family accommodation since 1987 and then subsequently let on an informal basis but does not have formal planning consent. I understand that under section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the local authority can only take enforcement action within four years of completion of any work which has been carried out without permission and so a retrospective planning application can be sought.

Issue. If retrospective planning permission was granted; would the building have to comply with the most recent building regulations?


Furthermore.....Does the structural condition of the building effect the chances of the property being awarded retrospective planning permission?


Any guidance or advice would be much appreciated.

Valkyrie888 wrote: »

Silvercar - couldn't agree more. I think that based on the advice from EachPenny, the vendor would probably not get a LCD as the annex is a barn with carpets. I believe that the vendor knows this but is trying to squeeze every penny he can out of the place as he is retiring. As I am not clued up on planning, I am building a good foundation of knowledge through forums, research and liaison with planning authorities so that I can produce a business case for the vendor and hopefully drop the price.

Strange then, that you mentioned nothing of that in your original post. :huh:

It sounds like the vendor has been doing the previous owner a favour, both of them being older people, and perhaps quite rightly seeking to secure the best financial position they can for their retirement. What they've done - perhaps naively - may be unlawful, but in my opinion it is on the lower end of the scale.

If you were taking information gleaned from this forum to work with them to get the best result for all of you then fair enough. But it sounds increasingly like you are seeking out ways to use your knowledge - gained for free - to hammer them for every penny possible.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your motivation, I hope so.

But as it sounds like the activities of the vendor and his tenant are not the only things which are a bit fishy then the only further advice I'd offer is you should walk away from this one since undermining the vendors position in the way you apparently want to do will only have the effect of undermining your own position if you actually go ahead and buy. All you'll achieve is to buy a house and a cowshed for a bit less money than the vendor is hoping to sell them for.

eddddy

Valkyrie888 wrote: »

I am building a good foundation of knowledge through forums, research and liaison with planning authorities so that I can produce a business case for the vendor and hopefully drop the price.

In general, people selling property don't really look at buyers' business cases. They're only really interested in the amount you're offering.

You may have a great business case, but if somebody else offers more (with or without a business case), the buyers will probably just take the higher offer.

If your goal is to negotiate a good price, perhaps focus on things like:

• how much interest is there in the property
• how long has it been on the market
• what offers have they had
• how desperate are they to sell

FWIW, from your posts it sounds like maybe your current strategy is geared around showing the EA and vendor that you are much cleverer than they are.

That's a very bad negotiating strategy. It really, really hacks people off. I've seen that fail many times.

DoaM

eddddy wrote: »

FWIW, from your posts it sounds like maybe your current strategy is geared around showing the EA and vendor that you are much cleverer than they are.

I'm reading it as ... sell to me for £30k+ less else I'll cause you a world of pain by dobbing you in to the council.

But maybe I'm just a cynic.

Valkyrie888

I think that you may have misunderstood my comments. I am not trying to undermine the vendor or blackmail him into lowering the price.

The vendor and the agent have both lied about the planning consent for the annex. The vendor has also lied about the acreage and the construction of the outbuildings.

Now that I know the annex does not have consent, I would like the vendor to acknowledge that the annex is unlawful and I want to be able to lower my offer to take into account the loss of income, construction costs and legal costs etc. The asking price reflects a property with an annex etc; in my opinion if it doesn't have an annex then the price should be adjusted to reflect this.

It is my intention to request that the vender either:

1. Declares the annex to the council and requests for a CLD and Building Regulations regularisation.
2. If he refuses, then accept that it is not an annex and lower the asking price.

I am not threatening to report him to the council but I am aware that he may wish not to declare the annex due to possible council tax arrears and having not declared the annex's rental income since he took possession of the property. I understand why he doesn't want to declare the annex, but is attempting to sell it and palm off the implications. All I am asking for is to either declare it to the council or acknowledge that it is not lawful and re-evaluate the price.

Cheers.

P.S. The vendor and former owner do not co-exist out of friendship....it's cheap and he's too drunk to move. The vendor is in an excellent financial position and I am not taking advantage of an OAP.

Slinky

Have you even considered the situation of the tenancy the previous owner has and what difficulty you're going to have getting vacant possession?