What to do?? Victorian house presently divided-back to one house?

[Parrotface]

Hello friends.
It’s all there in the title! Looking at possibly offering on this lovely house that was converted to flats back in the day.

it was one detached house, now is 2 flats with a metal staircase up the side for access to first floor flat.

they are selling the two together. Two titles. One holds freehold one is leasehold.

planning department REFUSED permission to reconvert back to original.

wanted to ask what options we had to get this glorious old thing back to one space.

thanks

mark

 

[Tigercubrider]

Not an expert but they probably have an issue with the fact that they will lose a home. Therefore it puts pressure on existing housing/planning.
I guess that you could buy and argue, but it's a risk, as you may be stuck with it.
Leaving it as is but changing internals probably causes issues with regs because it's two properties and you may find that you pay double council tax?

 

[^woody^]

You need to check the planning policy, specifically regarding housing provision/ quotas and compare this with the refusal (assuming the policy has not changed since refusal decision) and see if the refusal reasons are valid, or worth another go and appeal

 

[Parrotface]

I asked the estate agent to give me some background information: this below is his reply

‘The owner was unable to get planning permission for immediate permission. However, the council have said if you live in the property for 3 years you will be then able to apply and be granted permission under lawful development. You would need to pay x2 council taxes ( for each flat in those three years ). The owner has stated as long as the council taxes are paid they don’t mind if works are carried out in those three years. But I should point out ( for my own protection ) that I cant guarantee this as true or accurate’

I don’t know if what he states is legally true?

 

[ETAF]

Well, as a laymen , i think this says it all

But I should point out ( for my own protection ) that I cant guarantee this as true or accurate’

 

[Parrotface]

Well, as a laymen , i think this says it all

I agree, but experts may well be able to know whether this is BS or not

 

[DevilDamo]

Claim Lawful use for what... as one or two dwellings?

The Estate Agent stated “The Council have said...” but the advice has that caveat. Is the caveat from the EA or The Council? If it’s from the EA, is there any correspondence between the Council and owner about this change of use/lawful situation?

 

[^woody^]

I asked the estate agent to give me some background information: this below is his reply

‘The owner was unable to get planning permission for immediate permission. However, the council have said if you live in the property for 3 years you will be then able to apply and be granted permission under lawful development. You would need to pay x2 council taxes ( for each flat in those three years ). The owner has stated as long as the council taxes are paid they don’t mind if works are carried out in those three years. But I should point out ( for my own protection ) that I cant guarantee this as true or accurate’

I don’t know if what he states is legally true?

That seems to be a mix of complete BS and not having a ****ing clue.

The agent appears to be saying "Live in it, carry out the conversion in secret, pay both council taxes as some sort of evidence that you are living in it, and after three years apply for a certificate of lawful development".

Bear in mind the agent would love for you to buy it. He wont give a toss after he's pocketed the sale commission.

 

[Captain Nemesis]

Not an expert but they probably have an issue with the fact that they will lose a home. Therefore it puts pressure on existing housing/planning.

Could be.

In which case they would have a history of never refusing applications to knock down a large Victorian house and build 2-3 new ones on the same plot, or 6-8 flats, wouldnt they.

Roll up, roll up, place your bets...

 

[Parrotface]

That seems to be a mix of complete BS and not having a ****ing clue.

The agent appears to be saying "Live in it, carry out the conversion in secret, pay both council taxes as some sort of evidence that you are living in it, and after three years apply for a certificate of lawful development".

Bear in mind the agent would love for you to buy it. He wont give a toss after he's pocketed the sale commission.

Yes I think that’s exactly what’s he’s saying.

If I were to do that, live in it. Convert it etc, would then after 3 years there be NO WAY that council could refuse?

 

[^woody^]

There is no three year time limit, it's actually four years if that's what that agent was thinking about. But I suspect a 10 year period will apply for that type of conversion - and that's as long af it's not deemed concealment in the first place and enforced under the Localism Act.

 

[Nakajo]

Was it a planning permission or an LDC that was 'refused'? And either way, I'd be curious to know the council's reasons for refusal. Despite Richmond and Stanhope Gardens, the fact remains that in law, the re-amalgamation of a property is (implicitly) not a change of use. Unfortunately, those parentheses , allow scope for a different interpretation, meaning you've got to have some pretty big cojones to make a purchasing decision on that basis.

See Martin Goodall's excellent blog for more insight

 

[Parrotface]

Was it a planning permission or an LDC that was 'refused'? And either way, I'd be curious to know the council's reasons for refusal. Despite Richmond and Stanhope Gardens, the fact remains that in law, the re-amalgamation of a property is (implicitly) not a change of use. Unfortunately, those parentheses , allow scope for a different interpretation, meaning you've got to have some pretty big cojones to make a purchasing decision on that basis.

See Martin Goodall's excellent blog for more insight

You have an extremely eloquent way of explaining, the trouble is that I’m not exactly sure I understand what your referencing- please could you explain to a layman. Thanks and sorry to come across as ignorant!
Mark

 

[^woody^]

Yes, explain those parentheses.

 

[Parrotface]

There is no three year time limit, it's actually four years if that's what that agent was thinking about. But I suspect a 10 year period will apply for that type of conversion - and that's as long af it's not deemed concealment in the first place and enforced under the Localism Act.

On the basis that it’s being advertised to be converted back, is that not enough evidence to refute concealment?

Was it a planning permission or an LDC that was 'refused'? And either way, I'd be curious to know the council's reasons for refusal. Despite Richmond and Stanhope Gardens, the fact remains that in law, the re-amalgamation of a property is (implicitly) not a change of use. Unfortunately, those parentheses , allow scope for a different interpretation,

it looks like it was pre planning refused as nothing on the planning website entered in...