ChatterBank1 min ago
local council building control enforcement notices.
a neighbouring property has a building standards enforcement notice on an unauthorised development on its land. the owners managed to procure a certificate of lawful use as a dwelling, ( a change of use ). building standards issued an enforcement notice on it . when the owners did not comply with b.s. requirements, b.s. instructed them to vacate the premises and convert the development back to its original status. the occupants may , or may not have vacated the premises but the development has not been converted back. the council are refusing to enforce the notice. is there anything i can do about this? and will the situation affect the sale of my house if and when i'm frustrated enough to move.
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bunty39. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There isn't anything you can do.
A Certificate of Lawful Development effectively gives the right in law for the BUILDING to be there. It is a planning thing - in lieu of planning permission being granted. And you say that has gone through.
Building Control approval is something different - it grants the right for the building to be occupied - it is regarded as habitable, if you like.
They are 2 separate things, and the absence of one doesn't nullify the other.
What the owner has to do is to bring the structure up to scratch - or demolish and rebuild.
Unfortunately he has already 'won' the principle that residential planning permission exists on the site.
A Certificate of Lawful Development effectively gives the right in law for the BUILDING to be there. It is a planning thing - in lieu of planning permission being granted. And you say that has gone through.
Building Control approval is something different - it grants the right for the building to be occupied - it is regarded as habitable, if you like.
They are 2 separate things, and the absence of one doesn't nullify the other.
What the owner has to do is to bring the structure up to scratch - or demolish and rebuild.
Unfortunately he has already 'won' the principle that residential planning permission exists on the site.
thankyou buildersmate.
there's more to it though. last year the owners applied for planning permission to build an almost similar house on the footprint. planning refused because they said that the 'dwelling' with the enforcement notice on it could never have been made habitable so that this application was treated as a new build. planning permission was refused on two grounds., 1. the design and fabric did not fit in with the other surrounding properties, can't remember what the other reason was. however b.c have kept the enforcement notice on it. it feels like a battle between planning and building control. unfortunately we're in the middle.
there's more to it though. last year the owners applied for planning permission to build an almost similar house on the footprint. planning refused because they said that the 'dwelling' with the enforcement notice on it could never have been made habitable so that this application was treated as a new build. planning permission was refused on two grounds., 1. the design and fabric did not fit in with the other surrounding properties, can't remember what the other reason was. however b.c have kept the enforcement notice on it. it feels like a battle between planning and building control. unfortunately we're in the middle.
Interesting.
The local authority have almost certainly done this because they have fouled up on the planning issue. One has to have 10 years of demonstrable planning 'disobeyance' without the planning authority twigging that an illegal Change of Use has occurred bfore the CLU can be got.
So the what the local authority are now doing is to force the owner to bring the existing building in line with Building Regs - perfectly reasonable - if he wants to occupy it, he's the one who elected not to go through the proper process in the first place. It generally is a lot easier to pull down an old building and start afresh, rather than renovate.
They have him in a Catch22.
The local authority have almost certainly done this because they have fouled up on the planning issue. One has to have 10 years of demonstrable planning 'disobeyance' without the planning authority twigging that an illegal Change of Use has occurred bfore the CLU can be got.
So the what the local authority are now doing is to force the owner to bring the existing building in line with Building Regs - perfectly reasonable - if he wants to occupy it, he's the one who elected not to go through the proper process in the first place. It generally is a lot easier to pull down an old building and start afresh, rather than renovate.
They have him in a Catch22.
thankyou buildersmate for giving me a chance to discuss this situation with someone. i've been told that the change of use to a ' dwelling' only requires 4 years of continual use to obtain a clu. i can't see the owners ever complying with the b.c. requirements. but since the b.c. are not going to force the issue, it's very likely that the owners will just very gradually move back in., and what brave heart is going to report this and start the whole thing back up again. i can only hope that the situation will not affect my sale if i simply try to move away from the situation.
That I'm afraid, is wrong.
It's 10 years in the case of a change of USE (e.g. existing agricultural building being used as residential).
It is 4 years for a new unlawful construction. (e.g. I have an existing house as my residence which has PP, of course, but I put an extension on the side of, without getting the necessary PP). That's when the 4 years applies.
It's 10 years in the case of a change of USE (e.g. existing agricultural building being used as residential).
It is 4 years for a new unlawful construction. (e.g. I have an existing house as my residence which has PP, of course, but I put an extension on the side of, without getting the necessary PP). That's when the 4 years applies.
So there was a workshop there already and this individual put additional structure onto it and made it bigger. That's why the certificate of lawfulness only required 4 years - it's unlawful development. Pity no-one alerted the planning authority earlier.
The planning authority now can't force him to remove it, and it can only be ordered to be demolished if it is unsafe.
Time to plant a hedge?
The planning authority now can't force him to remove it, and it can only be ordered to be demolished if it is unsafe.
Time to plant a hedge?
Buildersmate, I'm sorry to be the one to point this out, and it doesn't happen very often, but you are wrong on this count. Whilst the period of limitation is 4 years for operational development and 10 years for a change of use, in the case of a change of use to dwelling the requisite period is only 4 years and a CLE can be granted after this period if no planning enforcement action has been taken. I am not clear from the OP whether the enforcement notice was from planning or building control but is sounds like it may be for non-compliance with building regs.
I'd be interested to see the officer report, it sounds like an interesting case.
I'd be interested to see the officer report, it sounds like an interesting case.
1 to 11 of 11
Latest Posts
ChatterBank7 mins ago
It’s Christmas Eve! What Are We...
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Crosswords17 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
I Post This Video Every Year . . .
ChatterBank24 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.