Is this planning approval in1974

Section62

WIAWSNB said:

Is it not a moot point since it was built in 1974, way past enforcement action now? 

It depends why the OP is asking....

Grumpy_chap

WIAWSNB said:

Is it not a moot point since it was built in 1974, way past enforcement action now? 

That was my initial thought until the OP indicated that the original "temporary" extension was replaced with something more permanent:

northwest1965 said:

The extension is  brick built with a flat roof which we replaced 2 years ago. (Was felt)

Can the OP clarify:
1 - Did they fully demolish and rebuild the extension 2 years ago?
2 - What is the context in which the question is being asked?

northwest1965

Grumpy_chap said:

WIAWSNB said:

Is it not a moot point since it was built in 1974, way past enforcement action now? 

That was my initial thought until the OP indicated that the original "temporary" extension was replaced with something more permanent:

northwest1965 said:

The extension is  brick built with a flat roof which we replaced 2 years ago. (Was felt)

Can the OP clarify:
1 - Did they fully demolish and rebuild the extension 2 years ago?
2 - What is the context in which the question is being asked?

I should clarify, I am the owner of the property, bought in 2013.
We are selling.

The temporary extension was not replaced as far as we know. It has always been brick with a flat roof. We only replaced the flat roof

northwest1965

These are the plans that has the council stamp on them. It certainly doesn't look to be of a temporary structure

WIAWSNB

Even if needed, I'd expect an indemnity policy to cover that to be very low cost.
"Extension exists, but with single..." what?

northwest1965

WIAWSNB said:

Even if needed, I'd expect an indemnity policy to cover that to be very low cost.
"Extension exists, but with single..." what?

but with single   4 1/2"brick walling

An indemnity insurance was purchased when we bought the property. Reading about them, it doesn't cover defects, just in case the council come around

Grumpy_chap

northwest1965 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

WIAWSNB said:

Is it not a moot point since it was built in 1974, way past enforcement action now? 

That was my initial thought until the OP indicated that the original "temporary" extension was replaced with something more permanent:

northwest1965 said:

The extension is  brick built with a flat roof which we replaced 2 years ago. (Was felt)

Can the OP clarify:
1 - Did they fully demolish and rebuild the extension 2 years ago?
2 - What is the context in which the question is being asked?

I should clarify, I am the owner of the property, bought in 2013.
We are selling.

The temporary extension was not replaced as far as we know. It has always been brick with a flat roof. We only replaced the flat roof

OK, thanks.  I initially read the previous comments that you had replaced the whole extension, not that you only replaced the flat roof (which is maintenance).  Thankyou for clarifying.

You are selling the property.
Does that mean that an overly zealous Conveyancing Solicitor has requested proof of planning permission or building control approval?
If so, a simple answer that the extension is understood to have been constructed in approximately 1974 should be sufficient to close down any queries as that means the extension is way outside the window for any enforcement action of any kind.

northwest1965

Grumpy_chap said:

northwest1965 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

WIAWSNB said:

Is it not a moot point since it was built in 1974, way past enforcement action now? 

That was my initial thought until the OP indicated that the original "temporary" extension was replaced with something more permanent:

northwest1965 said:

The extension is  brick built with a flat roof which we replaced 2 years ago. (Was felt)

Can the OP clarify:
1 - Did they fully demolish and rebuild the extension 2 years ago?
2 - What is the context in which the question is being asked?

I should clarify, I am the owner of the property, bought in 2013.
We are selling.

The temporary extension was not replaced as far as we know. It has always been brick with a flat roof. We only replaced the flat roof

OK, thanks.  I initially read the previous comments that you had replaced the whole extension, not that you only replaced the flat roof (which is maintenance).  Thankyou for clarifying.

You are selling the property.
Does that mean that an overly zealous Conveyancing Solicitor has requested proof of planning permission or building control approval?
If so, a simple answer that the extension is understood to have been constructed in approximately 1974 should be sufficient to close down any queries as that means the extension is way outside the window for any enforcement action of any kind.

Thanks.
Sh'e also being over zealous about our permeable driveway too! (but that's another story)

WIAWSNB

northwest1965 said:

WIAWSNB said:

Even if needed, I'd expect an indemnity policy to cover that to be very low cost.
"Extension exists, but with single..." what?

but with single   4 1/2"brick walling

An indemnity insurance was purchased when we bought the property. Reading about them, it doesn't cover defects, just in case the council come around

Ok, so that 'Building Control' (or whatever it was at the time) included adding a second skin? That's good.
Yes, indemnity policy is cover against any retrospective action being taken, and there is nigh-on zero chance of that. Effectively none.
If it was deemed unsafe, that's a different matter, but clearly that ain't the case.
Yes, they are being over zealous. Your call whether to agree. It shouldn't cost much - it's a sure bet for the company - and worth it if it gets the sale.