The evils of planning permission

Oh good grief, now we have another problem....

It seems that five (yes 5!) separate attempts were made to get planning permission for the place I'm trying to buy.

Four of these were to convert the original house into three separate dwellings and one of them (but not the final one) was to convert it into three dwellings and to add a roof terrace.

All were rejected. This we know from one of the reports my solicitor had done.

This causes a couple of problems:

1. The building was converted into two dwellings not three.
2. The building now has a roof terrace.

According to the vendor's solicitor there is planning permission for the two dwelling conversion, and they are going to send us a copy, so that item is not an issue (assuming they provide the relevant documentation).

The second problem is a lot more of an issue. This one is pretty much intractable.

Normally in this situation, the vendor would take out an indemnity insurance against the planning authority requiring the removal of the works added without approval. Then retrospective approval would be requested.

Of course, in this case we have a planning application specifically being rejected with a roof terrace. This means that the insurer will not touch this with a barge pole, the likelihood of the application being rejected and a requirement for the works to be undone is much higher. This is further accentuated by the discussion my solicitor had with the planning department, where they indicated that they very rarely grant applications for terraces, as they reduce the available privacy of neighbours. Luckily, this was in reference to the previous application, the current standing of the existing (planning free) terrace was not discussed!

End result: Higher risks mean actively disinterested insurance companies. (Or sky high premiums!)

Add to that, that the only outside space this flat comes with, is the terrace, and the value of the property is reflected in the price accordingly.

So should a planning inspector ever actually assess the place once I had bought it, I would cost me several thousand pounds to change back the work already done, and at the end of it the property I bought would be worth substantially less than I paid for it.

My mortgage lender has been informed of this, no doubt they will want a revisit by the original surveyor, who will have to revalue the place sans terrace, and no doubt give a likely indication of the cost of removing the unauthorised changes. Once they have this, they will no doubt reduce my lending ability accordingly.

On the upside, if the changes were made in 1994 (when the original conversion took place) then the changes could most likely stay. There is no hard and fast rule about the duration between a change being made and the length of time a planning authority has to instruct the owner to undo the change, but the 'soft' rule is that anything over a decade and you are safe.

Accordingly, the estate agency has been dispatched to contact the owner of the flat downstairs, in the hope that they have been there long enough to know when the changes were made. It seems likely that the changes were made in 1994, or 1998. Obviously if the change was made in 1994 we are (relatively) good, if it was 1998, I have another three years or so to wait before I am 'safe'. Of course if the change was made in 1994, the final inspection of the planning department should have requested the removal of the terrace too, that would be double plus good, as they have cocked up!

Of course the other upside, is that we may be able to reduce the offer for the flat by the estimated cost of loss, and the offer is accepted. Although to be honest, given the outrageously hardball nature of the vendors game to date, I'll not hold my breath over that one!