Is that right? If something needs planning permission but didn’t get it and is built anyway and remains unchallenged for 4 years, it becomes exempt from enforcement provided it was in plain view?

We’re buying a house with a workshop in the garden. The workshop is 5m x 4m and 4(ish) metres tall but on one side, is less than 2m from a boundary. We think this stops it being permitted development and therefore requires permission. However, it was built in 2010 so is it now beyond the reach of enforcement?

Generally, get a declaration from your seller and get them to pay for / put in place a policy of defective title insurance.

all depends if the /local Authority Know about it, if they are aware there is no time limit on Planning Enforcement

Sellers have already claimed it was permitted development.

It was only us checking the criterion that has raised the question.

rule 1 – dont listen to sellers – they have vested interest.

4 years is right. See paragraph 4 or 5 http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/ensuring-effective-enforcement/planning-enforcement-overview/

If you’re not 100% sure indemnity policy’s for things like this are only £100ish from memory, we got sellers to get one on an old extension which seemed to have some paperwork missing. We think it was all above board but local authorities and or crappy conveyancer screwed up but it was quicker at the time than waiting and we were on a timescale

This is the point your solicitor earns there money.
I’d say the sellers need to buy an indemnity policy for you.

I built a Conservatory on a previous house. I had verbal approval from the planning officer and they promised paperwork. I was finishing the roof when the refusal came through the door.
Its still their now and that was 14 years ago.

Thanks all. Email sent to the conveyancer asking that the vendor supply a lawful development certificate to show no enforcement action can take place.

I hate this buying/selling bollocks.

The rules for permitted development on out buildings changed a while back. Think you were allowed 4m to the top and 2.5m to the eaves for any building, same as the current regs for buildings 2m from a boundary. Only a vague memory and can’t remember when but if this was built before then, and my memory is right, then it would be pd. TBH if nothing has happened in 4 years it’s unlikely to happen now unless there was an ongoing argument with the planners.

If it’s all ok then the seller should have no problem getting a certificate of lawfulness pursuant to s191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 from the local authority confirming that the structure is now immune from enforcement by operation of s171B of the same Act (this gives the ‘normal’ 4 year immunity period you’re thinking of).

The problem may arise that if the structure has been deliberately concealed from the local authority – if it has or might have been then the 4 year limit doesn’t necessarily apply.

In which case they need to be indemnifying you for the risk of enforcement action against it.

I wouldn’t trust their interpretation of the General Permitted Development Order.

Second lot of free advice given on this forum! (planning lawyer when not found mincing my way slowly around the trails)

If they are claiming its PD worth double checking if they’ve extended using pd as this would be their allocation

You and the seller need to be careful, if questions are asked/the authorities are made aware of a potential issue, you can void the indemnity policy before you’ve even applied for it. That can leave a minor issue that your mortgage company is unhappy with, and you can’t indemnify it.

The thing is, this outbuildings is what attracted us to the house. Without it, the house doesn’t work. So as I understand it (which may be wrong) an indemnity doesn’t cut it. That would cover us for the enforcement action but would leave us without an outbuilding.

Which is why the seller needs to obtain a certificate of lawfulness from the local planning authority to confirm that the building is immune from enforcement.

I think that’s what we need but this far down the line, no one wants to have that sort of delay suddenly come along. Makes me wonder if they honestly believe it was pd or whether they were just hoping to get away with it.

If they genuinely thought it was PD they could and should have obtained a certificate before putting it on the market since any lawyer worth their salt should flag the lack of express planning permission as an issue in the sale process.

The lawyer who did my last conveyancing did exactly that for me (although I already knew it was an issue given my day job). Seller had already obtained certificates though, they just hadn’t provided them. Doesn’t sound like the situation you’re in.

IIRC the 4 year rule only applies to dwellings and this is a workshop, very much ancillary to the dwelling. For a non dwelling the rule is 10 years. Its reduced to 4 years for housing to prevent people being made homeless after 9 years that was deemed to be hardship.

on the other hand the planners will waive through anything these days, especially if it exists already. Get some indemnity off the vendors and go for it.

No hh45, the four year immunity period applies to both building operations and to changes of use of existing structures to use as a single dwelling house.

Ten years for everything else.

Since the erection of the outbuilding constitutes ‘building operations’ the four year period applies (in principle, and subject to the “deliberate concealment” point).

The planners will not “waive through anything” (given that we have no information from the OP as to any restrictive planning designations that might apply – for example green belt, AONB, conservation area, proximity of listed buildings or any one of many other restrictions) so I think it’s a little unwise for the OP to just go ahead.

As onzadog has correctly identified already, an indemnity won’t prevent enforcement action if the local authority are minded to enforce and the presence of the outbuilding appears to be the making of this particular property.

‘Get an indemnity and go for it’ is (in my view) not an appropriate course of action.

It’s not in any restricted area and over 20m away from the house. I’d imagine that the only person with any grounds to object would be the neighbour whose wall it is too close to (by about a foot).

If the local planning authority had previously taken an interest in this outbuildings, would that have shown up on the searches?

So far, we only have the vendors word that it’s not contentious but then again, they claimed it was permitted development.

It’s not just about objections by neighbours, the local authority may have planning policies relating to outbuildings re size, siting, materials etc.

The only prior interaction that would show up on searches would be if the local authority had served an enforcement notice against the structure. I think your uncertainty comes from not knowing whether the authority are even aware the building exists? There won’t be anything on the record if they aren’t aware of it – and you’d like to know what they will (or won’t) do once they do become aware of it.

Best case scenario = it’s immune from enforcement because of existing for more than 4 years and the authority aren’t interested in pursuing enforcement action, allowing the structure to remain with little/no input or effort on your part.

Worst case scenario = the authority aren’t aware of it existing, they become aware and do decide to enforce against it, requiring demolition of the structure. This scenario involves costly appeal processes (if you want to try and retain the structure) which may not ultimately succeed.

Or some other scenario inbetween the above two.