Buying a bed & breakfast that has had some change of use seems vendor didn’t submit plans HELP :(

ThisIsWeird

Would an indemnity policy be effective here?

user1977

ThisIsWeird said:

Would an indemnity policy be effective here?

Possibly, though it would help if the OP came back and clarified what was changed when, and what consents there are (or aren't). It sounds like they're panicking unnecessarily at the first suggestion of planning being lacking, rather than having had any advice about the position or potential solutions.

Section62

jlfrs01 said:

It could be possible the 7 year rule may apply in this instance - might be worth getting the exact date the works were carried out because if more than 7 years have passed, planning permission isn't required, (this is extended to 10 if there is a challenge on record though).  If that is the case then that may be the OP's get out of jail card.

^This isn't correct.

In England and Wales there is a bar on enforcement action being started after either 4 or 10 years (depending on the nature of the work) in many (but not all) situations. In other situations (e.g. with listed buildings) there is no time limit. I believe the "7 year rule" relates to planning law in the Republic of Ireland.

Where enforcement action has commenced there is also no time bar.

The effect of the bar (in England and Wales) isn't that "planning permission isn't required", it is that enfocement action cannot be commenced. The original requirement to obtain planning consent remains unaffected.  This is an important distinction because the way the law works complicates the situation where further alterations needing planning consent are wanted.  Without planning consent or a 'lawful development certificate' for the first lot of changes, the LPA could attach greater weight to the significance of the combined changes than they might otherwise do.

MeteredOut

ThisIsWeird said:

Would an indemnity policy be effective here?

My understanding is the you can only indemnify against things which might take place, but since it is now known that no change of use has been approved, it would be difficult to get such coverage now.

user1977

MeteredOut said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Would an indemnity policy be effective here?

My understanding is the you can only indemnify against things which might take place, but since it is now known that no change of use has been approved, it would be difficult to get such coverage now.

No, other way round - you can't (easily!) get cover for a change of use which hasn't yet occurred, only for things which are reasonably well-established (without immediate uproar from the neighbours/planners etc). This would be a normal scenario for indemnity insurance.

CSI_Yorkshire

MeteredOut said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Would an indemnity policy be effective here?

My understanding is the you can only indemnify against things which might take place, but since it is now known that no change of use has been approved, it would be difficult to get such coverage now.

The "thing which might take place" in this case would be enforcement action, so as long as the OP doesn't go to the council to ask if such action is planned, indemnity insurance would seem plausible.

lawcher

We haven’t brought the property we have only just began legal works - it wouldn’t be on us to search for planning permission when you apply for a mortgage as you’d really think any intelligent seller would of sought permission or asked planning if they needed it 

The legal work starts after you make an offer and instruct a solicitor by this point you’d sign the mortgage offer pay for searches and the survey is done before the mortgage offer so how can we know about if they had permission that’s not down to any purchaser as if they haven’t permission they woks know they can’t sell it so it’s on them for trying to sell it.

lawcher

I’m confused why and how would any purchaser know if and when the work has taken place ?

the seller is responsible to ask planning  if they can do the work without planning permission 

I’m 100% positive that buyers would not be researching planning permission on every property they buy we don’t know when the changes were made we liked  the property made an offer it was accepted the place could of been this way years and high is what a solicitor is for. F  the seller didn’t seek permission and gain it then legally they have broken the planning law not us.. Why would we think it was an issue when we made the offer the seller is a property developer so no excuse him saying take his word for it isn’t acceptable.

lawcher

User1977 the change has happened it was a 15 bed hotel now a bnb with 2 apartments but we don’t know when or how this happened or who buy only as the seller said to estate  agent take his world for it he didn’t need planning permission - he would only know that if he had asked them

he saos  he didn’t need planning permission as there’s no structural work be done but he has made 2 apartments with kitchens in the building so has done work as there is 2 more kitchens  now so the work has seemingly taken place since they purchased the 15 bed hotel in 2017 as he said he did the work. 

CSI_Yorkshire

lawcher said:

I’m 100% positive that buyers would not be researching planning permission on every property they buy

Asking for proof of or searching for planning permission / building control sign off is a completely normal action for the buyer's solicitor to do in almost every transaction where works or change of use had occurred.

It's even a commonly recommended thing for the buyer themselves to do.