Planning condition ?

[wongy]

Buying a house that has land. Some of land has been sold off a couple of years ago and two bungalows have been built on it. A condition of the planning was that sheds on land that will be included in the sale should be demolished. We would like to keep the sheds and the builder isn't bothered about demolishing them. Would it be okay to keep these sheds ? Will we be in trouble down the line ? Is there a time when the planning condition is void ?
Any help would be great . Thanks

 

[oldbutnotdead]

I'd be surprised if the planning condition said 'should', I think 'shall' or 'will' or 'must' are far more likely- in which case technically the bungalows are not currently built to the granted planning permission.

There was a thread on here a while ago about a similar scenario (large plot separated, house built etc etc)- a couple of years down the line the purchasers of one of the plots had the council enforcing one of the planning conditions (to lose half their garden to form a driveway and offstreet parking for the other house). Be very careful, if the council decide to enforce it could get very messy. EDIT Have you actually seen the planning permission or are you relying on what the builder is telling you (very unwise)

Also worth checking if your house still has PD rights- they may well have been removed as part of land split, which could devalue the place considerably.

 

[wongy]

Thank you Old but not dead. The builder lives in one of the bungalows and the nephew in the other. Yes seen the planning permission its all public on the council website. Not sure what you mean by PD rights ? This is all new to us. Thanks again

 

[oldbutnotdead]

PD= Permitted Development. Stuff you can do to the house & garden without needing planning permission (small extension, shed, garage, replace windows, info is all on the Planning Portal). Since the place you are buying is on a plot that has been split to allow an additional 2 dwellings to be built, the grant of planning permission MAY have included the removal of permitted development rights to the original house.
The builder wants to sell the place so it is unlikely he's going to mention any possible drawbacks.......get your solicitor to check the Land Registry entries and the planning documents very carefully- it wouldn't be a big surprise to find a ransom strip across your driveway or that the bungalows aren't built where the plans say they should have been built. BE VERY SUSPICIOUS

 

[^woody^]

I am confusion.

You can't be buying a house that "has land" onto which two bungalows have been built. You are buying a house with its own land, and next door will be the bungalow with it's own land. ie the boundaries should be already defined.

A planning condition is a condition and unless it is removed formally, then it should be carried out.

This will be a complex situation if the land is split before the condition is enacted, and has implications for both parties. You need this sorting out by your legal advisor as part of the conveyance before you commit to any purchase.

 

[wongy]

Hi, Just to clarify. The owner of the house we want to purchase isn't the builder. The owner is an oldish lady who on the land had a farm breeding pigs. The land was almost 3 acres. She got change of use on some of the pig buildings. Which was approved. She then sold this part of the land (almost an acre) to the builder. But part of these pig buildings remain on the land that will be in our purchase . Reading some of the conditions on planning portal, one condition was that these buildings on our land were to be demolished by the builder as a condition of the planning granted. This was to be done at least two months before they lived in the new bungalows built. But they are living in the new homes around 12 months. But they are still standing because he said he isn't bothered about them being there. The council came out to check that building regs were comformed to , so why didn't they mention the sheds ? Who will be in breach of the planning when and if the sale goes through ? Us or the builder ? We would love to keep the sheds to store garden stuff in. Looking on a website it says there is a 4 year rule, if they are still there in 4 years time they can stay ? There was a bit somewhere saying that no more residential buildings to be put on this site. Not sure if that is where the bungalows are or where the house is. This will be our last move want it to be right. Not getting any younger ha ha Thank you

 

[^woody^]

Thats even more confusing. I've erased it from my brain cache

The post above yours still applies

 

[wongy]

Hi Woody, How do you get a planning condition removed ? Many thanks

 

[oldbutnotdead]

Building Control and planning are completely separate departments with completely different functions. Building Control won't care about the outbuildings, all they are interested in is that the buildings have been constructed to comply with energy efficiency and structural stability and a few other technical areas. They aren't even interested how big the things are, as long as they're properly constructed.

Planning are interested in population density, look and feel and other aesthetics- they rarely emerge to see if what has been built is what was permitted, usually only if someone objects.

So.

Check (you and/or your legal advisor) all the conditions that were attached to the planning permission and make sure you fully understand all the implications.
Check the Land Registry entries for the house you're planning to buy

Your outbuildings- if in the future (10 years is probably the window, good spot @blub) the council comes along and says 'oi, these shouldn't be here' then YOU will be on the hook for demolishing them, which may not be cheap if there's asbestos roofing involved or any other environmental issues (pig farm- is there a slurry bund or pit involved?). If your solicitor can get the builder to indemnify you against any costs involved then fine but if anything kicks off you'll probably have to chase him through the courts which will be messy and expensive. Don't forget- he isn't doing you a favour by leaving the buildings up, he's saving himself a few grand (depending on how big they are & how they're built).

Of course the other way would be to get a quote for demolition and knock that off your offer- shame that'll cost the old lady rather than the builder!

(I'm assuming here that we're talking about substantial agricultural buildings that wouldn't be permitted development in a million years (10m x 50m x 6m high, that sort of thing). )

 

[blup]

Don't assume that because the Council haven't spotted that the sheds haven't been removed that there isn't a problem.​

You've obviously done some research because you are aware of the planning permission/condition.

This site suggests it is 10 years, but they're not always kept up to date.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ensuring-effective-enforcement

If I were buying it I would first want the sheds removed and for the Council to confirm the condition had been complied with.

But it is your purchase and entirely your risk.

Blup

 

[^woody^]

Hi Woody, How do you get a planning condition removed ? Many thanks

It would require an application to the council by the person who owns the land to which the original permission relates to, and not a third party or neighbour.

The complexity is if the land is split and sold off with the land to which the condition relates being separate to the land to which the permission relates.

 

[wongy]

Hi, The sheds that are left are made of wood. I don't think the roofs are asbestos. The biggest shed is around 25 /30 long 10 foot wide , it does however seem to be about 9/10 high. Since the bungalows were built it is now less than 2 metres from there fence. There are two more that are 14 foot and 10 long , so not that big. We would need to put a extension on the hose we buy because it isn't that big. But not sure we will be able to if there is no PD on our side. Not sure its worth all the hassle it may become. I thank you all for your input, its given me a lot to think about.

 

[oldbutnotdead]

OK, so they really are sheds rather than agricultural buildings and close to PD dimensions. Check that the house still has PD rights- if it does then you can put structures that sort of size up whenever and wherever, which reduces the odds of the council bothering to enforce the demolition of the existing ones and will probably allow you to extend (subject to original size of the house etc)

 

[lt8480]

This will depend on the exact wording but my understanding based on whats written above is the condition says the shed must be demolished before occupation. (not the sheds must be demolish within a set period after occupation).

Based on this the enforcement would be for them to move out of the house until the sheds are demolished. Therefore I would expect the sellers conveyancing solicitor to tell them not to sell you the sheds and the land upon which they sit - as they will then be unable to demolish the sheds if enforcement comes along.

The conveyancing solicitor could put in a covenant on the lang that gives the seller permission to demolish the sheds should they wish - of course that makes the sheds worthless.

Either way I wouldn't give the sheds any value.

 

[oldbutnotdead]

This will depend on the exact wording but my understanding based on whats written above is the condition says the shed must be demolished before occupation. (not the sheds must be demolish within a set period after occupation).

Based on this the enforcement would be for them to move out of the house until the sheds are demolished. Therefore I would expect the sellers conveyancing solicitor to tell them not to sell you the sheds and the land upon which they sit - as they will then be unable to demolish the sheds if enforcement comes along.

The conveyancing solicitor could put in a covenant on the lang that gives the seller permission to demolish the sheds should they wish - of course that makes the sheds worthless.

Either way I wouldn't give the sheds any value.

This was the situation covered in a previous thread (off street parking was the bit not completed there, the works would have been a large detriment to the occupiers of the new house). Given the lesser detriment (relatively small timber sheds easily flattened) I'd completely agree with you about the sheds having no value but the land is still going to be worth having (PD rights dependent....)