This will probably end in a reapplication. Technically the original planning permission is now void as the conditions were not met - and now can't be met! That may be more your neighbours problem than yours but since your property was granted the original planning you can't avoid getting caught up in it. I wonder why this has come up now after 2 years. Are you now parking on road and ****ing somebody off? If you have adequate off road parking you could reapply with a new scheme and that should sort everything. Your neighbour might go halves with you on the app since it is their house that now doesn't have planning permission.
Received an 'Alleged Breach of Condition' from Council Planning Control - Help!
- Thread starter AJ1983
- Start date
Sponsored Links
The more I have thought about this the less I think this is a problem for the OP.
Since the new house has been built an obligation has arisen which means a drive and garage must be built on the OPs land, but this obligation is attached to the building of the new development, even though it has to be enacted on the neighbours land.
If the planners try to take enforcement action against the OP, (I don't see what enforcement action they can take) what happens when he says OK then knock down the new development and then the obligation for the drive on my land is no longer there.
Since the new house has been built an obligation has arisen which means a drive and garage must be built on the OPs land, but this obligation is attached to the building of the new development, even though it has to be enacted on the neighbours land.
If the planners try to take enforcement action against the OP, (I don't see what enforcement action they can take) what happens when he says OK then knock down the new development and then the obligation for the drive on my land is no longer there.
The original planning permission was granted to the OPs house - to the previous owner. As the new owner the OP takes on the responsibilities of the previous owner. If the LPA take enforcement action it will certainly be aimed at him rather than the new house owner.
Thought occurred to me- bit too late now since the OP has replied to the first letter- who was the letter addressed to? If to the previous owner then OP should have forwarded it to any known address or returned it marked 'MOVED'.
And for fun been looking at planning guidance regarding Breach of Condition notices- didn't realise they were quite so nasty, only way to appeal is to apply to the High Court for judicial review.
But Breach of Condition applies to the person responsible for the breach. Which is whoever instructed the builder to build next door. Plus the council have condoned (or maybe aided and abetted) the breach by accepting payment of council tax from the neighbours.
Professional legal guidance required and please let us know what happens.
And for fun been looking at planning guidance regarding Breach of Condition notices- didn't realise they were quite so nasty, only way to appeal is to apply to the High Court for judicial review.
But Breach of Condition applies to the person responsible for the breach. Which is whoever instructed the builder to build next door. Plus the council have condoned (or maybe aided and abetted) the breach by accepting payment of council tax from the neighbours.
Professional legal guidance required and please let us know what happens.
Sponsored Links
A developer buys a field and gets planning for a few hundred houses, divides the field into a few hundred pockets of land, and the titles all get registered individually in the new homeowners names.
If the council comes knocking in a few years time for breaches of the original permission, who's door do they knock on?
If the council comes knocking in a few years time for breaches of the original permission, who's door do they knock on?
Planning permission was applied for by the original owner and granted to the land. Anybody could have applied for the grant of permission, but the granting does not confer any rights over land not owned.
After the sales and division of the plots, unless there was agreement within the sale to grant rights to build on the sellers land to the buyer, then the permission to develop remains, but the capability to enact its provisions does not exist unless some further arrangement is made by the buyer with the original landowner or (as here) their successor in title
If somebody builds contrary to the permission, then they are responsible for their action and the consequences which could be demolition, or a partial build that stops short of completion.
I think that on the facts stated, the O P is in a strong position, but could be left looking at an empty neighbouring property for some time.
After the sales and division of the plots, unless there was agreement within the sale to grant rights to build on the sellers land to the buyer, then the permission to develop remains, but the capability to enact its provisions does not exist unless some further arrangement is made by the buyer with the original landowner or (as here) their successor in title
If somebody builds contrary to the permission, then they are responsible for their action and the consequences which could be demolition, or a partial build that stops short of completion.
I think that on the facts stated, the O P is in a strong position, but could be left looking at an empty neighbouring property for some time.
The reason I see it differently tony is that the original permission was granted to the OPs property and all the works in breach are within the boundary of the OPs property. The new house was developed as planned, and sold on, and my guess is they won't be bothered about that. I think they will work on the basis that he has full control over the land he therefore has no excuse not to carry out the works or deal with the breach.
PS. having said that we still don't know if the breach is causing any harm. As I said earlier if the issue is parking and there have been complaints that the OP is parking on road and causing a problem then there is a good chance the LPA will pursue it. On the other hand if there is no harm (issue) being caused by the lack of garage/driveway then I can't see what grounds they'd have for pursuing it anyway.
PS. having said that we still don't know if the breach is causing any harm. As I said earlier if the issue is parking and there have been complaints that the OP is parking on road and causing a problem then there is a good chance the LPA will pursue it. On the other hand if there is no harm (issue) being caused by the lack of garage/driveway then I can't see what grounds they'd have for pursuing it anyway.
FWIW, I think TonyW2's assessment fairly reflects the situation. One of the 'six tests' of Planning Conditions is that they must be clear. The fact that we're heading into page 3 of debate (aside from the windbag factor) is I think evidence that the condition is unclear and should be set aside. After all, what harm is there in a failure to implement it - other than that somebody may have to buy a bicycle?
Last edited:
The new house was built by the new buyer. They acquired no rights over the unpurchased land and so could not comply with the conditions concerning the building of the house. They have not complied.They should have applied with a new proposal that was achievable within their own control.
How could they force their (unwilling) neighbour to take any action?
Time for grovelling and negotiations.
How could they force their (unwilling) neighbour to take any action?
Time for grovelling and negotiations.
The condition is very clear. Whose name was on the Breach of Conditions letter and whose arm is the council going to twist? Where's the OP gone?
I agree, the condition is very clear. Planning permission runs with the land and in this case would have been granted to the host property. i.e. the property which the OP now owns. I don't see the relevance of the fact that part of the land was subsequently sold and developed. The breach is on the OPs land which he still has control of.
Don't follow tony. Unless I've read it wrong the breach is on the OPs land - the missing garage and driveway. The original owner was the person responsible for building the garage and driveway before occupation and that responsibility passed to the OP as the new owner. And that situation still remains. As far as I can see there is no reason why the OP could not carry out the works since he has full control over his own land. The LPA don't care about land being sold and who owns next door now - as far as they are concerned that should have been a matter for the buyer/vendor/legal people to sort out before completing the purchase. The fact it wasn't isn't their problem. I'm playing devil's advocate to some extent here because I'm still not sure there is any serious breach worth worrying about but what I am saying is that if the LPA pursues anybody it will be the OP, being the 'person responsible'. Otherwise we have a situation where the responsibility disappears because the land was sold and that can't be the case.
As an aside; I have a situation at present where a client is developing a barn which was part of a range of old farm buildings. There are three units and my client now owns one of them. There have been several issues over conditions and every time the LPA write to the farmer. I have asked the LPA to contact us direct as the new owners but they will not. I believe because of the same situation - the farmer was, and technically still is, responsible for discharging those conditions so it is him they write to. My client has taken on the task of getting it sorted - or rather they've employed me to do it - but responsibility still remains with the farmer.
As an aside; I have a situation at present where a client is developing a barn which was part of a range of old farm buildings. There are three units and my client now owns one of them. There have been several issues over conditions and every time the LPA write to the farmer. I have asked the LPA to contact us direct as the new owners but they will not. I believe because of the same situation - the farmer was, and technically still is, responsible for discharging those conditions so it is him they write to. My client has taken on the task of getting it sorted - or rather they've employed me to do it - but responsibility still remains with the farmer.
- Joined
- 19 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 151
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
I believe the responsibility lies with anyone who has a current ownership interest in the application property. Therefore if the original applicant or developer is no longer involved they could not be subject to any formal enforcement action. Current owners could of course pursue compensation from the developer through other legal avenues if formal action is taken or the current owners have to carry out works at their expense.
jeds might have a point there- one of those odd phrases you see on conveyances that the 'property is transferred together with all liens, debts and other obligations'. Nasty one for the OP but that's why you have solicitors involved when you buy/sell a house. Common sense still says that the OP shouldn't be landed with the obligation but common sense and the law often don't sit in the same room.
Where's the OP- I want to know how this one plays out.
Where's the OP- I want to know how this one plays out.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
