Planning permission advice needed

user1977

fandyman said:

user1977 said:

fandyman said:

user1977 said:

fandyman said:

user1977 said:

fandyman said:

I think my solicitor (who is acting for the lender) will call the insurance company up and verify this is mentioned to protect the lender, no?

There's no reason why anybody should be doing this on your behalf (I doubt the insurer will discuss the matter with your solicitor anyway) or why it would protect the lender - it isn't something which is necessary in order for valid buildings insurance to be in force. The solicitor will not normally look beyond checking that there is buildings insurance in force.

In that case I do not understand why my solicitors are explicitly asking me to look for insurance company that can insure the building knowing the ongoing regularisation process.

Surely they solicitors would have not told me that if it was not important for exchange? Shall I question my solicitors now?

Has your solicitor said they actually want to get involved in this, or were they merely giving you some advice and letting you get on with sourcing the buildings insurance?

As others have said though, this is a bit of a sideshow when you also need to sort out the regularisation/indemnity insurance points anyway.

The solicitors asked whether I have been able to obtain confirmation from my building insurance company that they will give full cover (on exchange of contracts) in spite of the fact of the pending retrospective building regulations consents application.

"The insurers have not raised any concerns with me about the pending retrospective building regulations consents application"

Do you think I can continue with standard online building insurance quotes and subsequent policy while not mentioning the retrospective building consents approval to the insurers thus hoping that the solicitors do not mention that to them?

That is precisely what I am trying to get across, yes. There is no need to mention anything to insurers other than whatever is brought up by the questions on their proposal form.

gm0

If your council has the PD revocation archived online and can track it down there should (probably) be a list with the legal reference to recovation of what you can still do.  We have this situation and document ourselves and there isn't much left in PD. Safety replacement of oil tank.

"Like for like" replacement of life expired items such as windows or roof tiles perhaps as that is never PP.  For like for like.  Change of materials and appearance probably is.  So I'd PP for roof work say if historic materials were unattractive or unavailable given the spend levels for roofs.

All else is PP.  At least it's a "free" application under the exemption if the work would have fallen within PD category.

My experience with PP for windows (timber to Alu clad, astragal to glazing bar was that took 12 months to get. And two cycles.  Absolutely awful.  Lots of chasing and escalation, Several lots of lost samples to get again or be rejected until they were ultimately embarrassed enough to signoff. 

People don't bother and you can see why stretching the definition of like for like and running down the four year clock is appealing

fandyman

Section62 said:

fandyman said:

We are not planning to apply for indemnity insurance for the conservatory as we will be planning on fixing/rebuilding it in the not so far future.

I guess your point means if we ever want to refurbish it we may open ourselves to some more works as we have no knowledge how it was done and whether we can reuse some percentage of it (i.e. brickwork). Anyone aware whether we can get any penalties for the previous owners not applying for planning permission (conservatory and back and front window replacements) and if we go ahead with the purchase what is the process with planning permission to get it reinstated properly?

No, my point was more that it isn't a good idea to tie yourself in knots in trying to avoid having to get planning permission by using PD rights to the maximum.  Sometimes people do odd things like sinking the floor level so they can get adequate headroom without the overall height of the building exceeding the PD maximum.

In your case I could see a potential risk that you might be mistakenly advised to work with the existing conservatory to avoid the need to apply for planning consent - for example, by only changing the windows rather than the roof, or by reusing the existing brickwork rather than extending it by a few feet.

Sometimes people get so focussed on being PD that they don't see the bigger picture, and the result is sub-optimal.

In other words, don't restrict yourself by starting the design from the point that the existing conservatory walls will be reused.  Start with the conservatory you want, and if that needs full planning consent then work out how to get that.

The only way you could get a penalty for the conservatory is if the council took enforcement action and you refused to comply with the enforcement notice.  On the basis of what you've said, the council is now time-barred from starting enforcement action, so you wouldn't be at risk of a penalty - unless the enforcement process had already started and the vendor hasn't told you about it.

fandyman said:

Knowing the property had the PD rights removed is there any way to find out what is still permitted without contacting planning permission? Is it ok to contact planning permission re that?

If you don't want an indemnity policy then there is no reason (from your PoV) not to contact the council.  The vendor might not be happy, but since the council are already aware of the wall removal and the vendor has contacted the council himself, the point is probably moot.

Personally, in your situation I would openly discuss the conservatory and PD rights with the council's planning department so I had it on record that they knew about it.  I'd probably go one step further and consider getting a Lawful Development Certificate for the conservatory (if it is clear that it wasn't built as PD).

So the bank has given permission now and reissued the mortgage with price reduction all fine (no issues with ongoing regularisation certificate).

I have just found out the house is in the Local Heritage Area that has the 'Detached Houses On Relatively Large Plots' character.

Does it make sense to go for the Lawful Development Certificate first before we take on the task to restore/rebuild it or is it more if we did not want to touch it and would be required for the sale (which it was not in our case)? We are not planning to redo the conservatory straightaway but at some later point.

If we did decide to do the Lawful Development Certificate do we have to gather evidence for the continued uninterrupted use for the established minimum of four years (https://urbanistarchitecture.co.uk/the-four-year-rule-explained-certificate-of-lawfulness-application-for-existing-use-or-development/)? Also there seems to be 4-year and 10-year rule and the latter is apparently coming into force very soon.

Would we have to ask the seller for the required evidence or ourselves gather these documents over the next 4 to 10 years?

fandyman

gm0 said:

If your council has the PD revocation archived online and can track it down there should (probably) be a list with the legal reference to recovation of what you can still do.  We have this situation and document ourselves and there isn't much left in PD. Safety replacement of oil tank.

"Like for like" replacement of life expired items such as windows or roof tiles perhaps as that is never PP.  For like for like.  Change of materials and appearance probably is.  So I'd PP for roof work say if historic materials were unattractive or unavailable given the spend levels for roofs.

All else is PP.  At least it's a "free" application under the exemption if the work would have fallen within PD category.

My experience with PP for windows (timber to Alu clad, astragal to glazing bar was that took 12 months to get. And two cycles.  Absolutely awful.  Lots of chasing and escalation, Several lots of lost samples to get again or be rejected until they were ultimately embarrassed enough to signoff. 

People don't bother and you can see why stretching the definition of like for like and running down the four year clock is appealing

I have just found out the house is in the Local Heritage Area that has the 'Detached Houses On Relatively Large Plots' character.

 What would be a suggested course of action if we moved in and initially did not plan to make any changes to the conservatory or its windows?

I understand that if the property had PD removed then I can assume that conservatory was built without PP when it was built over 30 years ago (unless the PD rights were removed some time after the conservatory was built which is unlikely). Does this require any paperwork from myself being a new owner?

Would you ask PP about it and apply for Certificate of Lawfulness for Existing Use or Development? I guess if we just wanted to replace the rotten wooden window frames in the conservatory with the new ones like for like and if there was no PP in the first place when it was built over 30 years ago (considering PD was removed) than that would have to be regularised with the council first somehow?

Or would you rather only involve council if you wanted to rebuild the conservatory after some time living there?

I guess the Certificate of Lawfulness for Existing Use or Development would only be required if we did not plan to rebuild the conservatory and just sell the house as it is correct?

Section62

fandyman said:

Does it make sense to go for the Lawful Development Certificate first before we take on the task to restore/rebuild it or is it more if we did not want to touch it and would be required for the sale (which it was not in our case)? We are not planning to redo the conservatory straightaway but at some later point.

If we did decide to do the Lawful Development Certificate do we have to gather evidence for the continued uninterrupted use for the established minimum of four years (https://urbanistarchitecture.co.uk/the-four-year-rule-explained-certificate-of-lawfulness-application-for-existing-use-or-development/)? Also there seems to be 4-year and 10-year rule and the latter is apparently coming into force very soon.

Would we have to ask the seller for the required evidence or ourselves gather these documents over the next 4 to 10 years?

The idea of a LDC would be to draw a line in the sand - to say that this structure as it is today is lawful.  Therefore it follows that applying for it should be done before making changes which might themselves need planning consent (and therefore restarting the 4-year clock).

The article you linked to has a bit more focus on changes of use (which need evidence of the usage) rather than construction having taken place without the necessary consent*.  If the conservatory was built 30 years ago then it should be obvious by inspection it is older than 10 years, but you should also be able to find evidence in the form of estate agent pictures, OS mapping, aerial photos, streetview etc that it was there at least 4 (or 10) years ago. (*bear in mind until you know when PD was removed this still isn't clear in your case)

The change in the law is currently only within a Bill which is in its first committee stage.  If the law does change (i.e. if that provision isn't deleted or amended) then it probably won't be until some time in 2023.

Don't get too hung up on the LDC - it is not critical to what you want to do.  I mentioned it because it would be the approach I personally would adopt to make sure that any later alterations I did wouldn't destroy the 'proof' that the conservatory had been their long enough to make it lawful development.

Also, if the reason for PD being removed is it being a "Local Heritage Area that has the 'Detached Houses On Relatively Large Plots' character" then you probably don't need to worry too much in any event.  Adding a conservatory to a detatched house on a relatively large plot doesn't detract too much from that character - it would almost be expected that a property of that type may have a conservatory.  I'd expect the reason for that status having been introduced is to stop developers buying up these properties and demolishing them to cram two (or more) properties into the same space, or conversions into poky apartments. I would see this restriction as good news myself.

jonnydeppiwish!

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

We can't use PD. Our local Parish council say so in our deeds.

No, we don't live in a conservation area

No, there isn't particularly a good reason to do so.

No, the PC shouldn't stop us doing anything that's classed as PD

Yes, it appears they did stop the previous owners trying to build an extension (although personally, I would have appealed - it was a poor reason for saying no).

Given the house was built in the 60s, how can the parish council deny you permitted development when it was only brought in in the 1990s iirc?

In addition, parish councils have very little impact on whether planning is or isn’t approved - they only get asked for their opinion by the local planning authority. Plenty of times I’ve seen them object to planning applications in a village I used to live, and the planning authority grant permission.

Also, I’m still confused as to why you are worrying about this so much. It’s a conservatory with a wall knocked through that’s been there for years. No authority (note definitely nothing to do do with a parish council) is going to ask for it to be rectified, it’s far too long ago (I think someone has already said it’s time barred for action).

Building regs - it’s still there, no movement then it’s fine.if I’m doubt, pay a structural engineer to check.

Section62

jonnydeppiwish! said:

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

We can't use PD. Our local Parish council say so in our deeds.

No, we don't live in a conservation area

No, there isn't particularly a good reason to do so.

No, the PC shouldn't stop us doing anything that's classed as PD

Yes, it appears they did stop the previous owners trying to build an extension (although personally, I would have appealed - it was a poor reason for saying no).

Given the house was built in the 60s, how can the parish council deny you permitted development when it was only brought in in the 1990s iirc?

General Permitted Development goes back to 1948 (at least).

Permitted Development rights can be removed at any time, not just when the property is built (or modified).

A parish council wouldn't control the use of PD rights, and normally wouldn't have anything to do with the deeds, unless perhaps there was a covenant requiring the consent of the parish council to carry out development (which would otherwise normally be PD).

jonnydeppiwish! said:

In addition, parish councils have very little impact on whether planning is or isn’t approved - they only get asked for their opinion by the local planning authority. Plenty of times I’ve seen them object to planning applications in a village I used to live, and the planning authority grant permission.

Neighbourhood/Parish Plans are becomming increasingly common, and the parish council would be responsible for the content of the plan and the policies contained within it.

Once adopted, the Neighbourhood Plan becomes part of the legal planning framework and the Local Planning Authority must give it weight in making planning decisions in the area covered by the plan.

So whilst the parish council couldn't 'veto' an application, by setting out planning policies applicable to that parish, the PC can have quite a significant impact on planning decisions made on applications for that parish.

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Also, I’m still confused as to why you are worrying about this so much. It’s a conservatory with a wall knocked through that’s been there for years. No authority (note definitely nothing to do do with a parish council) is going to ask for it to be rectified, it’s far too long ago (I think someone has already said it’s time barred for action).

If you are talking about the OP, then there there almost certainly isn't an issue with the existing conservatory now, in planning terms. The issue being discussed is because the OP has said that the conservatory needs some fairly significant maintenance work done to it, and ultimately that might lead to demolition and rebuild of the conservatory.  That is a situation where the "don't worry about it" philosophy could go wrong.

fandyman

We are now fast approaching exchange and completion. The post office is not handling letters very well and there are some delays with the last signed docs to reach my solicitor.

The question I have is can the exchange and completion happen less than 5 working days between each other?

My buyer's mortgage offer expires on Friday next week. The letter with the signed docs should have reached my solicitor already but are still in transit somehow.

What is your experience?
Why does it have to be 5 working days?
I thought it could be even same day exchange and completion?

user1977

fandyman said:

I thought it could be even same day exchange and completion?

It can, yes. There's no need for there to be a period between exchange and completion.

Perhaps somebody is getting confused because the lender needs some notice of drawdown of funds - but you don't need to have exchanged before you ask them for the money, just have a reasonably firm idea of when completion will be.

Doozergirl

It doesn't have to be five working days.  

They might charge you a bit extra but people do it with less, even same day, all of the time.  In fact, during the pandemic, same day exchange and completion became a bit of the norm.