# Planning 7 year rule



## dewdrop (16 Jun 2013)

If a person has an unauthorised building for more than 7 years i gather they cannot be compelled to remove it. Apart from being unable most likely of getting a mortgage against the property what other disadvantages arise from this scenario. Recent court case sparked this query in my mind.


----------



## threebedsemi (16 Jun 2013)

The current situation is that a Local Authority cannot insist that unauthorised development, which has been in place for 7 years, be removed. 
The first point is that I do not see why this '7 year rule' could not be removed from planning legislation in the future.
The second point is that such development is still not legal development, so sale/lease/rent/mortgage issues relating to such development is always going to be problematic.

www.studioplustwo.com


----------



## sinnerboy (10 Sep 2013)

One cannot apply for planning permission to alter or extend  an unauthorised development

If destroyed by fire one could not simply re  build it.


----------



## 4poster (12 Sep 2013)

The 7 years mentioned is actually 7 years and 63 days.


----------



## nutty nut (23 Sep 2013)

4poster said:


> The 7 years mentioned is actually 7 years and 63 days.


Agreed and just to add that this period begins on the date of the expiration of the planning permission granted for the original development where appropriate.


----------



## daithi28 (23 Sep 2013)

nutty nut said:


> just to add that this period begins on the date of the expiration of the planning permission granted for the original development where appropriate.


 
.....which is now 5 yrs and 45 days, just to muddy the waters!!!!!!


----------



## 4poster (23 Sep 2013)

That's right, 12 years and 108 days from the date of grant of the planning permission.


----------



## Time (17 Nov 2013)

And if there was never planning?


----------

