Retrospective planning quandary

[jimmyhur]

Hello, I'm hoping for some advice please.

In March 2012 I had a free standing wooden custom "office" outbuilding built to the side of my property. I use it on a daily basis for work. This was built off-site and craned in to position. It is 2m x 3m. I requested a pre-app from my council and was advised in 2012 that due to the property being in a conservation area and the proposed outbuilding being to the side of my property that it would need planning permission. The planning officer liaised with the conservation people and they stated it would have a "neutral" effect. The planning officer stated they had no objection if the overall height was kept as low as possible and the exterior cladding was ok (it is cedar cladding). The outbuilding is sited on the site of a former garage that was already gone when we moved in in 2006.

Through laziness I did not follow through with obtaining planning permission (yes stupid...). I would now like to go legal as we are thinking of selling and do not want this to cause an issue during a sale.

I am thinking of just submitting a retrospective planning application through the planning portal but would welcome your thoughts about whether this is the right approach given the length of time that has passed.

Thank you.

 

[Nakajo]

So it's been there five years. Don't worry about it.

 

[^woody^]

A retrospective application could be refused.


You would be wiser to apply for a Lawful Development Certificate, as based on what you have written there, it will now be time barred from any enforcement, and this will be acceptable to a buyers Solicitor.

 

[Nakajo]

Yes, and lord knows the councils could do with the cash.

 

[jimmyhur]

Thanks both for your replies. Appreciated.

I have read about LDCs, but I wasn't sure if that was the right way to go about it. I have proof (in the form of a dated invoice from the installers and could get them to write and attest of the installation date) that the works were completed in March 2012. The "office" is not concealed and can be seen easily from the road.

Does the fact that this relates to development in a conservation area alter any of the time limits for enforcement? I.e. 4 years applies rather than 10?

 

[Nakajo]

No. It is always the 4-year rule that applies to building operations. If the building works were substantially completed more than 4 years ago, they will now be immune from enforcement, and therefore lawful. A conveyancing solicitor should be satisfied by the same evidence that you would provide to the Council, rendering the LDC unnecessary. That said, I understand conveyancing solicitors often ask for LDCs, whether they're needed or not

 

[jimmyhur]

Thank you for confirming. I agree about what you say with regard to solicitors - a piece of paper is probably best in this instance (yes, we should have had it in the first place before commencing works, but....)

 

[chappers]

I wouldn't bother with an LDC in fact probably best not to contact the council on the subject. Use the explanation given above and offer an indemnity policy if it really becomes a problem. As there is virtually no risk of enforcement the indemnity will almost certainly be cheaper than the LDC.
I have a guy buying my house who has been getting his knickers in a twist over a 12 year old boiler with no building regs. I have eventually submitted and taken out an indemnity policy to placate him 57 quid

 

[jimmyhur]

I wanted to come back to this and provide an update for anyone else in the same situation.

We have now sold the house (complete next week) and the issue I described was not even pulled up by the buyer's solicitors. We did not supply any information about when the "office" was built so I can only assume it was overlooked.