Possible breach of planning permission criteria for house I'm considering purchasing?

G

gombeen99

Registered User
Messages
13
[Firstly to say that I am just looking for people's thoughts on this house purchase issue, and that I will definitely be getting professional legal advice].

My wife and I were fortunate in that we sold our city-centre home a few months ago with the intention of renting for a while while we looked for a slightly bigger house a few miles out the country. We have now seen a lovely property, consisting of a "builders-finish" house which we are considering purchasing. This property was completed in 2006. This house has never been lived in so we would be the first occupiers. The interior was never fitted out internally so there is no bathroom, kitchen or heating system, with some plumbing work to be done. There are other bits & pieces outstanding but nothing major. We would be getting a full structural survey done before going ahead with the purchase.

I requested from the estate agent and was provided with the local authority planning application for the house, granted in early 2004.

My question relates to one specific planning criteria clause in this document, which states that "the house, when completed, shall be first occupied, as a place of permanent residence, by the applicant and shall remain so occupied thereafter for a minimum of 5 years".

As we are not the "applicant", if we went ahead with the house purchase, could the local authority turn around and say that this was in breach of the planning criteria (i.e. the PP applicant was not the first occupier and did not reside there for 5 yrs) and cause us problems or force us to sell?

I think (but could be completely wrong) that there is some length of time in which the local authority can raise objections (5 / 7 yrs??) to breach of planning criteia, which if added to the date of granting of PP (2004 + 5 or 7 yrs) would mean that by the time we moved in (in a few months) it would be too late for them for object? Does anyone have any thoughts on this, or am I completely off the mark, and would it be a huge risk to go ahead with the purchase?

Many thanks for reading and if you've any thoughts whatsover, I'd appreciate them.
 
It's 7 years from the breach that the right arises. I.e. from the date you move in for 7 years running.

Yes it is a very serious risk. The house would be an unauthorised development and you could be forced to knock it down within 7 years of moving in without compensation.

Back away now.
 
Even without the planning issue (which I agree should make you run away) buying a finished unoccuppied house that has been empty for 4 years would likely have 'issues'.

Either way, steer clear.
 
Thanks for the above comments - I rang the particular county council this afternoon (who are noted for their "stickiness" on planning regulations), and they said that yes, even without knowing any specific details re names or locations, it would be a breach of planning, and could result in a court appearance. However, the person I spoke to said that the council might find it hard to prove that the initial applicant had not lived in the house for 5 years, inferring that I could maybe get around it that way.

The downside to this is that while it might "prove" that the house had indeed been previously occupied (from date of construction to date of sale - which would be 5 yrs) and that I therefore couldn't be the first occupier, I assume it would result in stamp duty payable on a "second hand house".
 
it's a builders finish with no heating - how in the name of jebus could it be hard to prove the applicant never lived there? exhibit 1 - the brochure for the house; exhibit 2 - contracts/bills for the esb/bord gais etc etc RUN AWAY!
 
When does the 5 year residency clause start from? I thought it was from when you completed the project ( and submitted the completion cert) rather than from when the planning was granted. This would push out the term even longer.
Clasue 1 of my planning grant reads 'shall be first occupied as a place of permanent residence by the applicant/members of the applicants family or his heirs and shall remian so for a peroid of 5 years'.
Does anyone know of anybody getting trouble over this clause?
 
These comments are great, giving me plenty of mull over. Naturally, I and my wife are very enthusiastic about the house and would be very disappointed if it didn't work out, but it's great to get the views of unbiased, independent people who have never seen the house and have no "emotional" attachment. The overall sentiment is definitely very negative! If anyone has any other comments, I'd also welcome them.
 
gombeen99,

+1 what everyone else has said plus allow me to hit the nail on the proverbial, since you seem unsure of what your position in law might be or what exactly this building is.
If the following is true as you say, "there is no bathroom, kitchen or heating system, with some plumbing work to be done" then the building is not a house.

A house is defined as being "habitable" and washing, eating, and heating facilities are required as a minimum for any dwelling place.
It is very unlikely that there is an Opinion of Compliance since it is not habitable and therefore not fit for the purpose.
It is not complete or compliant with the Building Regulations and the long vacancy may have caused problems.

Any Architect's Opinion of Compliance that may be offered is likely to be qualified or misrepresentative.
Accordingly, it is unlikely that any financial institution will advance a mortagage.
Thus, unless you are buying for cash this purchase cannot proceed.

Please think twice and walk away.
Do not pay cash for this house.

:)

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.
 
We definitely won't be paying cash for the house! We have mortgage approval, but the bank hasn't seen or requested the planning conditions yet. However, I assume that they would request these prior to giving us formal approval. Thanks for all your comments, looks like this is one to walk away from. Disappointing, but too many potential negatives. Thanks everyone.
 
Don't walk away because of the Planning Condition. Most Councils will remove this condition if the original applicant has to sell the house due to financial hardship (Banks insist on being able to get their money!)

I agree that a building without a bathroom, kitchen etc is not technically a house.
I would certainly have concerns regarding a property not lived in for 4 years.
However from experience new unlived houses don't seem to deteriate in the same way as a house that was lived in and then was empty for 4 years.

A Structural survey with a moisture metre will find any problems. If the building needs some work the the seller might allow you to drill a hole in the wall to insert a scope to check the cavity / insulation etc. Thermal imaging could also help.

Never pay cash for a house!
Buyer beware - make sure you get excellent professional advise on this structure.
 
RKQ said:
Don't walk away because of the Planning Condition. Most Councils will remove this condition if the original applicant has to sell the house due to financial hardship (Banks insist on being able to get their money!)
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Get the seller to apply for permission to remove the occupancy clause. If they really want to sell it's the only way I can see anybody ever buying the house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top