Loft conversion - not in accordance with planning permission

[mark241]

Hi everyone,

I'm currently in the process of buying a home with a loft conversion in London.

From looking at the planning records, the current owners applied for permission a single large dormer (with two windows); this was refused. They then went and applied for planning permission for two smaller dormers, a similar size to each window. This was accepted.

In the end, however, they went ahead and built the original design, with the single large dormer.

The work was done in ~2008, and they do not have a Certificate of Lawful Development.

From my reading online, they should in general be able to get a Certificate of Lawful Development as the work was completed more than four years ago, and there seems to have been no enforcement action.

However - the planning consent applies a condition that the work "shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans"; I have read elsewhere online that the 10 year rule applies for breaches of planning conditions.

Does anyone have a view of whether the four-year or ten-year rule applies in this situation?

Obviously we're getting legal advice for this - but it is taking a while with a lot of to-ing and fro-ing between our and the seller's solicitor, and would love any thoughts on whether this is something that is workable or if we should abandon altogether.

Thanks!

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

The four year rule applies here plain and simple. Furthermore not only is it now immune from prosecution but it is now actually lawful. There is no need to be applying for any CLDs.

You'd like to think the solicitors would know all this but they either don't or will tell you to buy a pointless indemnity insurance which they'll make a nice little fee off but as mentioned you don't need that either.

 

[tony1851]

As above, the last people you ask for advice on planning matters are conveyancing solicitors.

 

[mark241]

Thanks!

To be fair to my conveyancing solicitor - we only pointed this out to her on Friday and she so far hasn't given me any advice in return. My impatience to figure out what the likely outcome was drove me to posting on here...

 

[tony1851]

she so far hasn't given me any advice in return.

Because she's ringing round her mates to try to find out what the position is.

And for which she'll charge you for the time involved.

But remember, you got it here for free! It's 4 years!!

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Thanks!

To be fair to my conveyancing solicitor - we only pointed this out to her on Friday and she so far hasn't given me any advice in return. My impatience to figure out what the likely outcome was drove me to posting on here...

What did you have to point out to her?

 

[mark241]

What did you have to point out to her?

That the loft conversion as built didn't match the approved planning application. To be fair to her, she hasn't seen the flat!

 

[tony1851]

Did the loft conversion actually need planning permission?
Most don't, and it would have to be a pretty large dormer (or other considerations applied) for it to need p.p.
Council's don't always let on if someone sends in an application which ordinarily would not need p.p.

 

[mark241]

Did the loft conversion actually need planning permission?
Most don't, and it would have to be a pretty large dormer (or other considerations applied) for it to need p.p.
Council's don't always let on if someone sends in an application which ordinarily would not need p.p.

The terrace is subdivided into three flats (since ~1890) so from my reading the usual permitted development rights don't apply.

 

[wessex101]

I thought that was a very interesting question.

It is not something I have encountered before so could Freddy or Tony please say why the 10 year breach of condition rule does not apply?

On a different note I would be checking the building regulations status, especially if it is a flat. It sounds like the previous owner or their builder had a rather cavalier attitude towards complying with statutory requirements. I would want to know that the structure is adequate and the means of escape is all tickety boo.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/up...ance_note-lawful_development_certificates.pdf

 

[mark241]

I thought that was a very interesting question.

It is not something I have encountered before so could Freddy or Tony please say why the 10 year breach of condition rule does not apply?

On a different note I would be checking the building regulations status, especially if it is a flat. It sounds like the previous owner or their builder had a rather cavalier attitude towards complying with statutory requirements. I would want to know that the structure is adequate and the means of escape is all tickety boo.

Yep, it's a bit of a conundrum - none of the guidance I can find online gives a clear steer on this.

I did find a somewhat similar case from the same local authority which implies that four years may apply here, despite the breach of a condition in the planning approval - in that example:

- Person sought permission for a two-storey side infill extension in 2009
- Plans looked very clearly like it was a separate house (with own bathroom, stairs, kitchen, etc), but was connected to the original house with a single door on the ground floor
- Planners approved, but attached a condition stating that the extension could only be used for the enjoyment of the owners of the main house.
- In 2014 the owners applied under the four year rule for a Certificate of Lawful Development for the side extension to be recognised as a separate dwelling. It was approved

The loft extension I'm looking at apparently has building regs (yet to see it with my own eyes though). As the conversion of the terrace to flats was done around 1890 (i.e - Victorian era - have found census records supporting this) then the overall conversion won't be up to modern regs - but that is essentially the case with the majority of converted terraces in the area.

 

[wessex101]

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/1app/guidance/guidance_note-lawful_development_certificates.pdf

Thanks Freddy. To be honest I've read it three times and I still don't really understand it. It still looks like the 10 year rule applies for the breach of condition. The 4 year rule only seems to apply for works undertaken without planning permission or "activity" in breach of a condition whatever the hell that means. I think I need to do some background reading to improve my knowledge.

I wonder if that's why the example mark gave of the extension being used as a separate dwelling because it was the "activity" of using it as a separate dwelling rather than any physical difference in the build.

I hope you don't think I'm trying to be a clever dick. Being a one man band I read these forums to try and keep my knowledge up to date and the input by you and Tony is very useful.

Going back to the Building Regs issue for the loft conversion, ideally I would want to see a completion certificate or at least have sight of the inspection records that show a completion inspection was carried out. Just Building Regs approval on its own does not confirm that the work on site was checked and complies. The means of escape for a loft conversion in a flat can be quite onerous and if it takes it over 3 storeys even more so.