Planning Enforcement Notice on the property i am trying to purchase

davidmcn

Cakeguts wrote: »

I would think that the sensible cause of action would be to assume that the council could apply another enforcement notice when they realise that the property has changed hands.

But they're out of time to do that (or at least, to do it without a successful appeal) if the facts are as stated i.e. it's been used as a garden for more then 10 years.

mrschaucer

Can't you just get a rabbit to "graze" the lawn?

stator

It's up to the sellers to sort this issue out.

If the garden is important to you, then do not even think of exchanging contracts until your solicitor has confirmed that the sellers have provided proof that the council are OK with the status quo.
If you don't want the garden, then buy the house anyway and return it to it's legal use.

noh

Cakeguts wrote: »

I would think that the sensible cause of action would be to assume that the council could apply another enforcement notice when they realise that the property has changed hands.

They don't need to because the original stays in force even if it has been complied with at some point.

from the document I linked to above

2.14 Compliance with an enforcement notice does not discharge the notice. It remains in
effect in relation to the land, unless it is withdrawn. In these circumstances, if the land
subsequently changed hands, prospective purchasers might seek some further assurance
of full compliance, in addition to their own observations and interpretations of the
requirements of the enforcement notice. This clarification might be needed to satisfy
potential lenders for loan security purposes, or to satisfy purchasers that they would not be
liable to prosecution.

SmashedAvacado

You can say it’s tenuous but the issue is that it is an issue. I have seen banks pull out of deals on this basis. There are a number of criminal offences that can attach to property ownership and this does trigger notification obligations.

If you’re laughing it off as a professional you might like to look into this more closely

You have also to be careful about tipping off - when a notification is made Under poca there is a separate offence committed if you tell the parties you have reported

SmashedAvacado

Doozergirl wrote: »

Sorry, but :rotfl:.

I don't know the answer but I know it isn't that.

Planning haven't enforced their enforcement action. The worse case scenario is that the OP at some point has to return the land to grazing. I suspect that the vendor could have gotten away with it over what sounds like over two decades of use as a garden and a certificate of lawful development could be applied for, but there's the whole indemnity policy thing which only really serves to stop people from actually sorting the issue out properly.

We used to have a planning officer on the boards many moons ago, it's shame we don't still. A google of whether a planning enforcement notice ever expires only brings me to paid-for professional forums for solicitors, so it's certainly an unusual case.

You’re confusing breach of planning which you can insure against with breach of an enforcement notice - which is a crime

Along with things like unauthorised tree works when a tpo is in place and making alterations to a listed building without consent. All could trigger money laundering offences and there is strict reporting liability

davidmcn

SmashedAvacado wrote: »

You can say it’s tenuous but the issue is that it is an issue. I have seen banks pull out of deals on this basis. There are a number of criminal offences that can attach to property ownership and this does trigger notification obligations.

If you’re laughing it off as a professional you might like to look into this more closely

If not tenuous then circular - if the existing use can't safely be continued then there won't be an enhanced value to create "proceeds of crime", because buyers won't value it on the basis of it being a garden.

Banks might pull out but that's because of the lack of planning for the current use, not so much because of the potential criminal aspect.

SmashedAvacado

Having been through the notification process I can tell you that it’s not. If you’re unconvinced you should have a word with your aml team.

SmashedAvacado

davidmcn wrote: »

If not tenuous then circular - if the existing use can't safely be continued then there won't be an enhanced value to create "proceeds of crime", because buyers won't value it on the basis of it being a garden.

Banks might pull out but that's because of the lack of planning for the current use, not so much because of the potential criminal aspect.

It’s not about how someone values an element of what they’re getting. You can’t say ‘I didn’t apply any value to the criminal bit so that means I’m clear’

helenjackson1987

Thanks for the many (and sometimes confusing) responses. We arent looking to proceed with the purchase if we are criminally liable, but the issue for us is whether or not the council will sign it off as it is their error in not following up the enforcement notice when the breach continued

The current sellers are prepared to provide a statutory declaration to confirm that (annoyingly) for the 9.5 years to date that they have been the legal owners (as they inherited the property) that they have used it as garden.

My solicitor is seeking to get a copy of the enforcement notice and we will review after we get it, but i was just trying to do a bit of research myself to stop myself panicking