Retrospective Planning Permission and Buidling Regulations

CIS

In respect of the council tax charge then unless you continued to not declare the property was present then there's no way the previous owner could be entirely free of the risk of a backdated charges.

As soon as you declared the property then the VOA would be looking at it and, where required, backdating the band. If that happens then the previous owner would be getting a bill, whether he liked it or not.

Valkyrie888

Thanks Chappers, much appreciated. I have a feeling that even if it got a CLD, Pembs CC would get it on building regs. I'll keep you posted.

Valkyrie888

Dear CIS,

Thank you for the advice re Council Tax; it is my intention to have a legal property and so I would definitely declare the annexe.

In the eventuality that the property was given a Certificate of Lawful Development but was deemed unsafe for habitation; would the current vendor still be liable for backdated charges for the period the annex has been occupied?

Kind regards,

Valkyrie

chappers

Valkyrie888 wrote: »

Dear CIS,

Thank you for the advice re Council Tax; it is my intention to have a legal property and so I would definitely declare the annexe.

In the eventuality that the property was given a Certificate of Lawful Development but was deemed unsafe for habitation; would the current vendor still be liable for backdated charges for the period the annex has been occupied?

Kind regards,

Valkyrie

Interesting one and your questions highlight an issue of definition, whereby different departments may have different definitions. I would be pretty sure that the answer to that would be yes, if the property was self contained and capable of being independently occupied I'm pretty sure they would say that it is liable for CT, they wouldn't care if it was up to standard or not.

Building regs contraventions can't be an issue now, due to the expired period for enforcement, issues with habitability would probably be with environmental health.

The old saying if it looks like something then it probably is, would hold true. So if it has a kitchen, a bathroom and living /sleeping accommodation then it is essentially a self contained dwelling. Planning would have to accept that and issue a CoLD, building regs would have to accept it but environmental health/health and safety may have something to say.

my issue would be regardless of status is the building of sufficient quality to actually be worth anything.

lincroft1710

Until the annex is assessed for CT, no CT can be charged. There is an anomaly because the "annex" has no planning and therefore if it were assessed for CT it would be assessed as a standalone dwelling, rather than an annex. Standalone dwellings can have the assessment backdated, annexes can't.

If you buy it with the tenant in situ then despite any pronouncements as to its legality or otherwise or offending building regs, it can be assessed as a standalone dwelling and the assessment backdated.

chappers

I agree and furthermore I think it's use is pretty much set in stone, it is definitely a separate dwelling and wouldn't qualify as an annex, in so far that it wouldn't be dependant on the main house to function, or be used to house a dependant relative.
I think one thing we are all sure on, is that it's CT status isn't dependant on it's planning or BC status.

EachPenny

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Until the annex is assessed for CT, no CT can be charged. There is an anomaly because the "annex" has no planning and therefore if it were assessed for CT it would be assessed as a standalone dwelling, rather than an annex. Standalone dwellings can have the assessment backdated, annexes can't.

chappers wrote: »

I agree and furthermore I think it's use is pretty much set in stone, it is definitely a separate dwelling and wouldn't qualify as an annex, in so far that it wouldn't be dependant on the main house to function, or be used to house a dependant relative.

Perhaps the easy way out (for the current owner and tenant) is for some sheep to suddenly appear on the smallholding (if there is no livestock there already) and for the "annex" to become a "shepherd's hut"

I'm still not entirely clear about the relationships, ownerships and the different land uses involved in this case (is it a 'farm' or is it a 'smallholding'?) but if there is no incriminating evidence showing that the tenant actually lived in the annex as his main residence then how will the council prove that it was used as a separate dwelling for CT purposes?

chappers

EachPenny wrote: »

then how will the council prove that it was used as a separate dwelling for CT purposes?

It doesn't necessarily have to be occupied, just suitable independent accommodation.
In just about all cases CT is still due on empty properties with the exception of the relative discounts that may be applied.

lincroft1710

EachPenny wrote: »

Perhaps the easy way out (for the current owner and tenant) is for some sheep to suddenly appear on the smallholding (if there is no livestock there already) and for the "annex" to become a "shepherd's hut"

I'm still not entirely clear about the relationships, ownerships and the different land uses involved in this case (is it a 'farm' or is it a 'smallholding'?) but if there is no incriminating evidence showing that the tenant actually lived in the annex as his main residence then how will the council prove that it was used as a separate dwelling for CT purposes?

You are overthinking.

The annex was constructed to be used as someone's sole or main residence, a standalone dwelling. If the council ask the VOA to assess the annex for CT, they will just laugh at the suggestion of it only being a shepherd's hut.

So you expect the tenant to totally empty the annex of all his possessions? Might deceive the council into believing it is empty, won't stop a CT band for a separate dwelling.

westernpromise

Isn't there a risk that you could be ordered to bring the outbuilding up to scratch as a dwelling so he can carry on living in it?!