Legal Dispute with Builder & planning advice

Another interesting debate ensues!

My understanding of this outline is that there is a case re the planning permission and a case re the building regulations, control act and the liabilities of the builder under duty of care and tort law.

Just because planning permission is needed and not sought does not exonerate the requirement to build properly.

Yes you can have an illegal development under planning law but this does not mean you automatically assume the contract is illegal and has no grounding. An illegally build structure which is built properly has a much better foundation (like it?) for a case of retentive planning permission.

If it is built illegally and build in contravention of the building regulations then the case will crumble because you should / could never get planning permission for something which is not to the regs in the first place.

Bottom line- independent architect, independent structural engineer and independent contractor should be the minimum conditions required for granting of planning permission in the future. This should be endorsed by banks, builders and planners to ensure some quality into the future.

Well Sconhome - with that last line you'll get no argument from me!

However, I'd like to "undermine" your argument in this line:

"Yes you can have an illegal development under planning law but this does not mean you automatically assume the contract is illegal and has no grounding."

What happens if you contract with a builder who builds a house for you which has got no planning permission?

Let's say you have misled him into believing it has permission and he builds in good faith?

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.

Onus of proof I would assume is on the 'professional' ensure all applicable permissions are in place.

Checks & balances.

If it was a case of deception I would expect that there is a civil case for the builder to chase with the client re fraud or deception. I would expect the court would not be sympathetic to the contractor.

However if there are drawings issued for construction the responsiblity for deception would be pushed back to the design team who should have ensured all applicable permissions had been obtained.

In the chain of professional the contractor will sit between the clients interpretation of the architect & engineers specification. Consider them as an interpreter who has to realise the practicalities of the design.

Was this case ever resolved?

Interesting case. Woud like to hear the outcome as well, though maybe its still in the court system.

I think the planning issue is indeed relevant.

I would argue as follows if i was speaking for the builder:

1. the building doesnt have permission;
2. it may have to be pulled down;
2. therefore it is worth nothing, it even has a negative value;
3. ok it was badly built,
4. but the mistakes of the builder have not caused the owner any additional loss over and above the loss he incurred to himself by getting an illegal structure constructed.