Planning problem.

LauraG

Registered User
Messages
22
I am all set to buy a house when my solicitor spots a problem; The original farmer who owned the land got PP for a dwelling subject to conditions, one being that he, or his immediate family, be the first occupiers of that house. A year later he sold that site to another unrelated guy who applied for PP for a different house on the same site. It was granted subject to the original conditions. Nothing was ever taken out about the residency clause. Now 4 years later he's selling the house to me. Does this sound dodgey or was it a mistake by the planning office to grant PP to the current owner because they didn't pick up on the original residency clause and therefore they should not have granted the permission?

Regards,

lauraG
 
Yes it sounds dodgy;

In my opinion, the only absolutely safe way to proceed is to obtain clarification from the planning office. If they say (in writing) that they do not regard the occupancy clause as continuing to have effect, fine. Otherwise I would not buy.

However, I should also say that there are many people who would still buy, as there seems to be absolutely no enforcement whatever of occupancy clauses. Also, some solicitors seem happy enough to act in these purchases -possibly due to perceived legal defects in the validity of the occupancy clauses (I regard this argument as weak, which is why I refuse to act in these transactions, but I must acknowledge that it is possible for a colleague to differ in good faith).
 
I think that when a new planning permission is granted on a property it renders the previous permission void.
If the clause was attached to the first and not mentioned in the second then I would think that it no longer applies.
 
Back
Top