Planning permission refused- selling

plehelp

Hi,

Bit of an odd one perhaps, but any help appreciated.

My parents house is sold STC. It is an ex- local authority property that was purchased from the council approximately 5 years ago.

An enquiry has been raised today by the buyers solicitor regarding the "re-roof and thermal insulation upgrade" work carried out on the house in around 2008/2009.

The house was still owned by the council at this time and the work was initiated and fulfilled by them or one of their contractors.

Today the buyers solicitors have provided a document which says that a retrospective planning application for this work was refused on June 1st, 2010 (retrospective application was submitted Jan 2010)

It seems very odd for the council to have denied their own planning application? My parents know nothing of this regularisation application, or of it's refusal.

Anyway, the solicitors enquiry essentially just said if there is any supporting documentation for the work (there isn't as my parents didn't own the house then) to please send it over, and also "please confirm that your client will pay for the indemnity insurance premium"

It's now at least 9 years down the line from when the work was done, likely nearer 10. Is an indemnity policy really likely to be required? Is there not some rule about work without PP after 4 years, would that apply in this situation as the council have never taken any enforcement action?

If it's likely that an indemnity policy will be required, does anyone have an accurate idea of cost? Google seems to throw up a very general "few hundred pounds" which could be anything from £300-£800ish, which isn't too helpful.

Thoughts appreciated from anyone more knowledgeable than me (us) in this area.

Thanks

spadoosh

Youve got three options. Find the documentation, pay the indemnity policy or likely have the solicitor advise the buyer to not proceed.

My indemnity policy cost £140 but thats because on plans theres a strip of grass in front of my house in reality its been a driveway for the best part of its life which cross what is public land (hardly any different than needing to go over a path to get on to a drive)

davidmcn

plehelp wrote: »

It seems very odd for the council to have denied their own planning application?

Not in principle - the planning dept ought to be treating the council's applications in the same way as anybody else's.

But it should be pretty obvious that they're not going to launch enforcement action into something carried out by their housing colleagues 10+ years ago, even if that were legally possible - and especially not if it was flagged up to them by the retrospective application (as the usual question after a refusal of a retrospective application is "shall we now take enforcement action?").

Frankly an indemnity policy is the quick and easy way of making the problem disappear, rather than start an argument about how pointless it is.

SmashedAvacado

FYI OP - the cost of an indemnity policy varies and in most cases is linked to the value of the property.

Section106

plehelp wrote: »

Today the buyers solicitors have provided a document which says that a retrospective planning application for this work was refused on June 1st, 2010 (retrospective application was submitted Jan 2010)

It seems very odd for the council to have denied their own planning application? My parents know nothing of this regularisation application, or of it's refusal.

As davidmcn says. Council planning officers will treat an application blind to who made the application.

However, it is a bit odd that the council housing officers carried out work which required consent and wasn't something that consent would be given for.

Have you seen a copy of the refusal notice? This should be available on the council's planning website FOC and usually without needing to register/log in.

It would be a good idea to know what the grounds for refusal were, as well as any comments made about rectification/enforcement work required. Those would also appear on the planning history for the property.

If you know why the application was refused then it might give an idea why no enforcement action has taken place. For example rectification work may already have been carried out, if so, the indemnity shouldn't be required. The buyer's solicitor might only have half the story.

foxy-stoat

Either pay for the policy or refuse and the buyers can pay for it.

Principles vs getting the sale here. Its probably pointless as it will never be used but as David says it will make the problem go away.

plehelp

If an indemnity policy is required it'd be a shame (more expense) but agreed, it's definitely not something to lose a sale over. Unfortunately the sale has fallen through a couple of times previously due unrelated/non house related issues, so whatever gets it sold at this stage!

I suppose i'm just that bit more curious as the same solicitor has been used by all 3 buyers and they've never raised this enquiry before (despite reaching this stage previously)
Incidentally it's also the one occasion where we have chosen not to use them, but i'm sure that's just a coincidence :rotfl:

I have checked the online portal for more info and all it says is refused unfortunately. Further information is only available going back to May 2018. Anything older simply says Approved/Denied.

Tom99

I thought an indemnity policy was invalidated if you contacted the LA, since the LA clearly knows about the issue would an indemnity policy pay out anyway?

davidmcn

Tom99 wrote: »

I thought an indemnity policy was invalidated if you contacted the LA, since the LA clearly knows about the issue would an indemnity policy pay out anyway?

Insurers can generally accept the position if contact with the planners hasn't been recent (e.g. within the last two years).

plehelp

We've been advised that an indemnity policy will be £40, so that's a worry off cost wise.

Although solicitor has advised that they've now contacted the council to try and obtain documentation for the work. I tried to call the solicitor for some clarification on this and to see if there was any idea on timescales/ whether we could just say leave it and we'll pay for the indemnity policy rather than pursuing documents, but they're in a meeting for the rest of the day.

Does anyone know if this is an option? Does the solicitor HAVE to go down the contacting council route? The council take forever with correspondence and charge more for a bundle of documents than the indemnity policy will cost so we'd rather they left it if possible.

eddddy

plehelp wrote: »

Does the solicitor HAVE to go down the contacting council route?

That's a question for the buyer and/or their mortgage lender.

If they're happy to proceed if you pay for a £40 indemnity policy, that's all that needs to be done.