Buying home with Building reg Plans Rejected

user1977

retiredbanker1 said:

To somebody like me who knows nothing about planning law I just have one question to ask the OP.

Why on earth are you doing all this - if you are a buyer and (obviously want good title) tell the seller to sort this out or just walk away?

We're not discussing anything to do with planning law or "good title", it's building regulations.

It's very commonplace for properties to have historical alterations with a lack of paperwork, and (usually) overkill to expect it all to be retrospectively authorised (and in many cases, practically impossible without the use of a time machine!). As above, the authorities are not going to be kicking in your door because they've suddenly taken a dislike to an extension from 30 years ago.

stuart45

When that extension was built Building Control had 12 months after completion to send them an enforcement notice. After that they'd need to apply to the High Court to take any action. For works completed now it's been changed from 12 months to 10 years. It's highly unlikely that Building Control would be interested in that extension.

Section62

stuart45 said:

When that extension was built Building Control had 12 months after completion to send them an enforcement notice. After that they'd need to apply to the High Court to take any action. For works completed now it's been changed from 12 months to 10 years. It's highly unlikely that Building Control would be interested in that extension.

I agree, but personally I'd still want to know what the reason for rejection of the plans was.  If it was something like a lack of wall ties or restraint straps etc, or the foundations were inadequate, then it won't necessarily get picked up on a survey if the build went ahead without modification of the plans.

I'd be concerned why someone had gone to the trouble and expense of making a BC application, then not done what ought to have been a trivial modification of the drawings to satisfy the BCO.  In some respects this situation should be more of a concern than a case where they didn't bother getting BC signoff at all.

ThisIsWeird

It's a weird one, since PP was given, but then the 'plans' - on which the PP was presumably granted - were rejected. This could be interpreted in a number of ways, but t'would be speculation.
Fortunately, I know of someone with the answer - the vendor.
They know. They soooo know.
Have they actually replied to your conveyancer's Q's yet?

user1977

ThisIsWeird said:

It's a weird one, since PP was given, but then the 'plans' - on which the PP was presumably granted - were rejected.

Not that weird and I would expect a rather different set of plans, given building regs need to cover all sorts of details which the planners don't care about.

NameUnavailable

The OP says they haven't asked the vendors yet. That's the obvious thing to do and they will know (even if they claim ingorance of it which WOULD be a red flag to me).

ThisIsWeird

NameUnavailable said:

The OP says they haven't asked the vendors yet. That's the obvious thing to do and they will know (even if they claim ingorance of it which WOULD be a red flag to me).

And, really, a copy of these rejected plans should be available.
It's a tricky one, because if the vendor claims they don't have a copy, there remains a fair chance the BC Dept has, but to ask them might scupper the option of an indemnity policy.
Tbh, the LA must surely know the extension has been built, but are seemingly not bothered about doing anything about it.