planning retention time frames

F

financially

Registered User
Messages
33
Hi,

as part of the appeal process against my PP (granted) initiated by an extremely truculent neighbour he has discovered that his house which my parents sold to him 8yrs ago (built almost 30yrs ago) was not in keeping with the PP granted. They applied for and got permission to build the house 65ft from the middle of the road, but then decided to build it 156ft back. As this was the early 80s they didn't think to reapply for PP for this!! So the house was built and sold on 20yrs later, with nobody noticing the breach in PP.

Anyway this guy has just noticed this now (why his solicitor didn't see it at sale time is beyond me) and is saying he is going to look for part of his road frontage back (the front of the site was supposed to be 100ft but is only 47). The solicitor involved says that he has no come back at all, especially as there was a clause in the sale contract stimulating that he was getting exactly what was on the site map.

Will he have to apply for retention? I would presume he would have no problem getting this for a house that has been built almost 30yrs, but he is a very unpleasant man and I'd actually like to see him having to jump through a few hoops as he is making me do in my appeal ;-))

Thanks
 
Vengence wont serve you. It will only start a cycle that will made you miserable in the long run.

If your solicitor says he may have issues around his retnetion. Perhaps you could let be known to his solicitor, and that you would see any point in highlighting it and dragging out his intentions, so long as his client backs off on his objections to you.
 
Planning retention should be granted but the council may require the site to be brought up to modern regulations regarding sight lines at the entrance and septic tank/treatment system details.
 

Build your permission. Move on. Best for everyone. You'll be neighbours soon enough.

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.
 
There is no point in making an enforcement complaint, the case would be statute-barred.

Only situation where he'd have to apply for retention is if he sold the house and a diligent solicitor picked up the detail during conveyancing which is unlikely. Few solicitors would actually open up plans and have a look, even though strictly speaking it is within their brief. Although this discrepancy seems quite glaring, you would be shocked at the planning issues that don't get picked up by solicitors.

If he choses to apply for retention planning permission, he would just be bringing trouble on himself.

Your neighbour has the right of appeal even if he is obnoxious. It is a pity the appeal system is so incredibly slow.
 
"Few solicitors would actually open up plans and have a look, even though strictly speaking it is within their brief."

Not so. Solicitors are not architects or engineers. The solicitor's function as a vendor's solicitor is to ask the questions: When was house originally constructed? Was planning permission needed? Is there a Cert of Compliance? Are there any extensions/alterations? When were they added? Was planning permission needed? Is there a Cert of Compliance?

Vendor ( not the solicitor) gives a warranty in the contract that, unless stated otherwise, there are no unauthorised developments affecting the property.

Purchaser's solicitor's function is to advise purchaser to carry out a thorough survey on the property pre-contract and check what is on the ground with what is in the contract.

"Although this discrepancy seems quite glaring, you would be shocked at the planning issues that don't get picked up by solicitors."

I am shocked at the cavalier attitude of so many people who do not think that planning enforcement is something that they should concern themselves with! And equally choose to play dumb when selling a property as if it won't ever be an issue. And sure, if it ever is an issue, can't we blame someone else!

mf
 
Planning Departments in local authority offices used to be frequented and telephoned by employees of legal firms doing planning searches for cert. of compliances, decision notice etc, now it's rare to see then around. The availability of info online may account for some but not all of this.

You don't have to be an architect or an engineer to pick up on the fact that a house is sited more than 100ft away from where it should be, I wouldn't call that technical or specialist detail requiring 4-5 years education in university to notice.

Conditions relating to occupancy, protected structure status or authorised uses are routinely ignored and in my opinion this is sometimes due to a failure on the part of the solicitor in performing due diligence. Solicitors rarely seem to pick up the Regulations/Act and actually check out what THE LAW about such matters.

I think planning enforcement is incredibly important and support it, the reality of the ways things work is a entirely different story.
 
mf1: People pay large sums of money to their solicitors as part of conveyancing process and by saying Vendor ( not the solicitor) gives a warranty in the contract that, unless stated otherwise, there are no unauthorised developments affecting the property. you're essentially saying its a sound practice to rely on the vendor's word that "sure everything is grand, no unauthorised development to see here".

It is beyond a joke that solicitors get away with a clause in a contract rather than doing some leg work and some legal work. Whether planning permission is needed is a matter of law, fully in the remit of a solicitor and not a matter for the vendor who mightn't even be aware that there are unauthoised bits on his property.
 
"You don't have to be an architect or an engineer to pick up on the fact that a house is sited more than 100ft away from where it should be, I wouldn't call that technical or specialist detail requiring 4-5 years education in university to notice."

Solicitors do not do site visits. The client's architect or engineer does. Two issues with this comment: 1. There should be a cert. of compliance with a build project and the location of the building on the site is a major certification issue. 2. Vendors should themselves know that their property is or is not built in accordance with their planning permission.

"Conditions relating to occupancy, protected structure status or authorised uses are routinely ignored and in my opinion this is sometimes due to a failure on the part of the solicitor in performing due diligence. Solicitors rarely seem to pick up the Regulations/Act and actually check out what THE LAW about such matters."

I can only disagree with you on this one. Purchasers/their solicitors will see the planning permission which will show user and occupancy restrictions. Protected status will show on a planning search which is routine.

"mf1: People pay large sums of money to their solicitors as part of conveyancing process and by saying Vendor ( not the solicitor) gives a warranty in the contract that, unless stated otherwise, there are no unauthorised developments affecting the property. you're essentially saying its a sound practice to rely on the vendor's word that "sure everything is grand, no unauthorised development to see here". "

Remember, there is a thing called personal responsibility. People ( among them some of my own clients) like to say things like: I didn't know, it was someone elses fault, the solicitor made me, the solicitor said I had to , the solicitor said I should - the answer to all being did it ever occur to you to make yourself aware of what you are doing when (a) you do something and (b) you have to do it properly or bear the consequences.

What I also said is that the purchaser should carry out a survey which will show up anything that a Vendor might have forgotten.

"It is beyond a joke that solicitors get away with a clause in a contract rather than doing some leg work and some legal work. Whether planning permission is needed is a matter of law, fully in the remit of a solicitor and not a matter for the vendor who mightn't even be aware that there are unauthoised bits on his property. "

Now you're just being silly!

Precisely how would a vendor not know that "bits" of his property are not authorised? Could'nt he get his own engineer or architect to walk around the property with him and explain what "bits" are original and what "bits" are add-ons? After all, it is a big transaction and he is going to be held responsible for the "bits" - should'nt he know something about the planning history of his property - its not rocket science.

Why exactly should the solicitor take on that vendor's responsibility?


mf
 
mf1,

I understand you are a solicitor and a good one by the look of your posts, but allow me to add in my tuppence worth here.

A client of an office I worked for bought a site of land in Inner City Dublin. The site was bounded by high walls. The access was to be via the rear boundary necessitating the demolition of the rear wall. The deal was done, the permission lodged and nobody objected during the application process. There was no Appeal.

During the requisitions on title and vendors solicitor confirmed there were no burdens on the lease which could affect the title, and it was later shown that he clearly understood the intention of the purchaser to develop.

When the developer came to site he was stopped by a third party who claimed ownership of said wall. The vendor only owned the land within the wall. It was generally acknowledged that the vendor knew about this matter but had given no written assurances [he was an engineer by profession], while his solicitor had. Both were sued in the High Court, but it was the solicitors indemnity cover that footed the bill.

I am aware of these facts because I had to prepare expository maps and swear evidence before the court regarding the access. Everyone was initially of the opinion that the vendor had pulled a fast one given his local knowledge and his qualification, but the court found otherwise and hung the solicitor out to dry.

Worth bearing in mind perhaps.
 
"Worth bearing in mind perhaps. "

Reminds me that the best advice I was given as a young solicitor when I asked an older colleague how to deal with clients.

"Treat them as the enemy"!

When my clients are looking for a "deal" on fees, I like to bear my insurance premium in mind. I suspect you are right when you say:
"Everyone was initially of the opinion that the vendor had pulled a fast one given his local knowledge and his qualification"
but unless the solicitor specifically went through the Requisitions and unless the Solicitor's response to queries was "Vendor confirms" "Vendor says", the Vendor could squirm out leaving the solicitor and their insurance to pick up the tab.

mf
 

(nods)

Its a while ago now, but I think that the Vendors solicitors gave the assurance stated as fact from their own knowledge of the site, without even the safety net of the qualification term "not as far as we are aware".

It turned out that a lot of local people knew about the wall issue because we were told anecdotally about lots of claims that had gone in over the years from people who had fallen off walls or had pieces of wall fall on them.

At the end of the day you were left wondering was this some kind of game being played to expose the whole ownership of wall thing for a wider agenda - shirley knot!!!



ONQ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register