Seller didn't disclose neighbour's approved planning permission - do we have any recourse?

jonnydeppiwish!

As per most others - they didn’t need to tell you as it’s public knowledge. Had it been proposed and they hadn’t told you, then it may have been a different story.

You or you conveyancer should have picked it up.

Due diligence so caveat emptor 

Sarahspangles

gazfocus said:

Your solicitor should have given you a pre contract report containing the results of all the searches that you have paid for. This planning permission definitely should have come up in those searches. 

Like I say this is a common misapprehension and solicitors aren’t always clear to their client that it’s NOT covered by the standard searches. Here’s an example offering it as an add on: https://www.homewardlegal.co.uk/news/post/what-conveyancing-planning-search

It’s possible nowadays to see most planning history online, but when I worked in Planning (last century) there was often a member of the public in the consultation room laboriously going through the records for hours.

Simonon77

It's quite possible they didn't know. Councils aren't always the best at informing people 

D924

Laughing all the way to the bank

MultiFuelBurner

The original.olanning application could have been some time ago, or they were very clever and waited.

To be honest we now do our own local searches for planning applications especially the immediate neighbours.

Jonboy_1984

Councils are far from perfect in terms of consultation. 

We had fun on our last estate with a proposal to add a new estate of around 80 houses on a field at the back. The council only notified tenants within the required distance of the site entrance, rather than the whole site. This meant 50% of the houses that should have been notified weren’t….luckily it didn’t pass planning.

TheJP

blackbaccararose said:

custardly said:

Caveat emptor. 

You would have to prove that the buyer knew about it and deliberately misled. Unless they have admitted this to you in writing you don't have a chance.

Thank you, I did wonder about this - just wasn't sure how much weight ticking "no" on the T6 (and the council telling me that he would have received a notice) would hold. Definitely a caveat emptor lesson for us in future!

You would need to prove that the council have receipt of the previous seller receiving notice. Usually the council gives notice to neighbouring properties by sticking the notice on a lamppost which they deem adequate notice. 

jonnydeppiwish!

TheJP said:

blackbaccararose said:

custardly said:

Caveat emptor. 

You would have to prove that the buyer knew about it and deliberately misled. Unless they have admitted this to you in writing you don't have a chance.

Thank you, I did wonder about this - just wasn't sure how much weight ticking "no" on the T6 (and the council telling me that he would have received a notice) would hold. Definitely a caveat emptor lesson for us in future!

You would need to prove that the council have receipt of the previous seller receiving notice. Usually the council gives notice to neighbouring properties by sticking the notice on a lamppost which they deem adequate notice. 

They also tend to send letters to the neighbours and then the neighbours comment on the application. Isn’t the question about proposals rather than approved planning permission?

Sarahspangles

jonnydeppiwish! said:

They also tend to send letters to the neighbours and then the neighbours comment on the application. Isn’t the question about proposals rather than approved planning permission?

That’s the way I read it, we’ve completed one of these within the last month.

We mentioned/attached a letter that had recently come about a trial of new traffic circulation arrangements on streets leading to the cul de sac on school days. As a trial that wouldn’t be something in the public domain.

user1977

blackbaccararose said:

Permission should have expired in early 2022 (roughly when our seller put our new home on the market) but on checking this with the council, apparently they did go ahead with "minor initial works" before this and so the permission is still valid.

A plausible defence may well be that they were aware of permission having been granted, but had thought it had expired and therefore wasn't relevant for disclosure.