Crosswords2 mins ago
planning on my conservatory?
i had a conservatory firm put a conservatory on the back of my house 5 years ago. its a secluded house and the conservatory ticks most of the boxes in a booklet i read recently about what doesnt need planning. the only exceptiion is its bigger, but not by loads, in volume than it says now requires permission (70m3) and the house has been extended before, back in 1972, with permission. now im selling the house im worried about it, as i have a very keen buyer. the firm said it was ok at the time and being a builder myself ( i know, shame on me) i was keen to see it up, i know that building regulations wise it was built ok as i did the base, i didnt get building regulations at the time as enquiries said it was going to be just on the limit of requiring them, a floor area of 30m2. i suppose i know the conservatory is as solid as a rock and in a very private setting that no one (other than the council ofcourse) could find objection too, big garden no neighbours etc. but now im filling in the selling paperwork im worried about it coming up. i have looked into indemnity policies with that in mind. the surveyor has been round and said everything was fine and didnt ask any questions. ive read things that suggest after four years im ok but could anybody comment on this, i would really appreciate it. buildersmate if your our there?
Answers
1 to 3 of 3
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by squidgy72. 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.
Yes I'm out here, and have answered similar questions many times - but each case is different.
Planning: Using your Permitted Development Rights to extend your house is fine. However the volume of the house used in this calculation is the volume of the house AS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED (or in 1948 if the house happens to be older). Since the house was extended in 1972, the volume extra created at that time 'counts' against your PDR. This is irrespective of whether you used PDRs at the time of the 1st extension or applied for PP for it. So you almost certainly needed PP. That's the bad news. However the good news is that if the conservatory has been up at least 4 years, Development Control (the PP people at the council) can't force you to remove it. The legal way around the problem is to apply for a Certificate of Lawful Usage (CLU). This is similar to applying for PP, it costs the same fee and requires similar drawings to PP. The difference is that the PP people can't refuse it. You have two options - either apply for this or leave it to see if the questions crops up then quote chapter and verse as above at the buyer's solicitor. If could possibly be used as a bargaining device to negotiate with you on price.
Building Regs
As a builder (I'm not) you probably know more about this than me. BR and PP are unconnected, and you have correctly identified that you didn't need BR application if the conservatory is <30 sqm in external area AND you have left the original external door is place (patio doors or an equivalent). So there should be no issues and you won't need an indemnity policy.
Planning: Using your Permitted Development Rights to extend your house is fine. However the volume of the house used in this calculation is the volume of the house AS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED (or in 1948 if the house happens to be older). Since the house was extended in 1972, the volume extra created at that time 'counts' against your PDR. This is irrespective of whether you used PDRs at the time of the 1st extension or applied for PP for it. So you almost certainly needed PP. That's the bad news. However the good news is that if the conservatory has been up at least 4 years, Development Control (the PP people at the council) can't force you to remove it. The legal way around the problem is to apply for a Certificate of Lawful Usage (CLU). This is similar to applying for PP, it costs the same fee and requires similar drawings to PP. The difference is that the PP people can't refuse it. You have two options - either apply for this or leave it to see if the questions crops up then quote chapter and verse as above at the buyer's solicitor. If could possibly be used as a bargaining device to negotiate with you on price.
Building Regs
As a builder (I'm not) you probably know more about this than me. BR and PP are unconnected, and you have correctly identified that you didn't need BR application if the conservatory is <30 sqm in external area AND you have left the original external door is place (patio doors or an equivalent). So there should be no issues and you won't need an indemnity policy.
i measured it externally and it is bigger than 30m2 and i did remove the door so i can walk through but the opening didnt change so nothing structural ie lintel. can my solicitor or me just get an indemnity policy to cover the whole thing. the buyers want to extend the house in a big way removing the conservatory. extending the house is not thought to be a problem where i live as a few around have done similar large extensions. does the certificate of lawful usage take the same amount of time as pp ie 6-8 weeks? thanks for your insight its priceless! i think if i could, and the buyers were ok with it i would just get an indemnity policy on it, do you think thats possible?
Lawful Development Certificates
There's some more words on them here that might help. If your buyer is going to pull the whole thing doewn anyway, there's no issue - he'd have to re-apply for PP for whatever he wanted to do. I think the timescale depends on how busy the Planning Dept are - PP decisions are supposed to be made in 8? weeks but many Authorities are failing to meet the timescales demanded by Government - make an enquiry at Development Control by phone?
http://www.planning-applications.co.uk/enforce ment4a.htm
Building Regs
You need to be careful if you are thinking about an indemnity policy because you certainly can't get one if you (or the buyer) have notified BC of the transgression. The reason is obvious - the policy is designed to indemnify in the event that BC decided to take retrospective action. And what they don't know about ...........
A second way in theory is to apply for retrospective consent. I don't see how you can apply for retrospective BC consent because with the original doors removed the "non-habitable" status of the room has been compromised and it is impossible to meet Building Regs stds on insulation because of the translucent roof - even though the main issue that people are generally concerned about regarding lack of BR approval is the structural one (foundations depth, lintels etc.)
But, again, if your buyer is proposing to demolish/re-extend, surely he won't have an issue with this?
There's some more words on them here that might help. If your buyer is going to pull the whole thing doewn anyway, there's no issue - he'd have to re-apply for PP for whatever he wanted to do. I think the timescale depends on how busy the Planning Dept are - PP decisions are supposed to be made in 8? weeks but many Authorities are failing to meet the timescales demanded by Government - make an enquiry at Development Control by phone?
http://www.planning-applications.co.uk/enforce ment4a.htm
Building Regs
You need to be careful if you are thinking about an indemnity policy because you certainly can't get one if you (or the buyer) have notified BC of the transgression. The reason is obvious - the policy is designed to indemnify in the event that BC decided to take retrospective action. And what they don't know about ...........
A second way in theory is to apply for retrospective consent. I don't see how you can apply for retrospective BC consent because with the original doors removed the "non-habitable" status of the room has been compromised and it is impossible to meet Building Regs stds on insulation because of the translucent roof - even though the main issue that people are generally concerned about regarding lack of BR approval is the structural one (foundations depth, lintels etc.)
But, again, if your buyer is proposing to demolish/re-extend, surely he won't have an issue with this?
1 to 3 of 3
