The media has recently reported on three cases regarding building on property without planning consent.
Sir Cliff Richard and his conservatory
Runnymede Council ordered Sir Cliff Richard to demolish the £30,000 conservatory he had built at his Surrey mansion, after he failed to win retrospective planning permission for it.
The singer only discovered that he should have sought planning permission for the conservatory, when he decided to sell his mansion. He was told by the Council that the conservatory, which was built in 2006, breached its green belt policy, as any extension to the mansion should not have exceeded 30 per cent of the original floor space.
The Council has said that the conservatory must be demolished by 9 March 2010.
Farmer told to demolish the “castle” he hid behind straw bales
A farmer who secretly built a castle-like property, and lived in it for four years while it was hidden behind bales of straw, was recently ordered to demolish it by the High Court.
Robert Fidler hid the property behind straw bales while it was being built in an attempt to avoid having to apply for planning permission. Mr Fidler and his wife even went as far as not sending their son to school one day when he was due to draw a picture of his home, just in case he drew a big haystack and teachers queried the structure!
When the building work was finished, Mr Fidler dismantled the disguise and applied for a certificate of lawfulness on the grounds that it must now be lawful, having been erected for four years without any objections. However, Reigate and Banstead Council decided that the four-year rule did not apply in this case because the property had not been visible during that period and he was ordered to demolish it.
The Court backed the Council, ruling that “The inspector’s findings were clearly ones he was entitled to reach on the evidence. It fully justified his conclusions that the erection and removal of the bales formed part of the totality of the building operations that Mr Fidler originally contemplated and intended to carry out. The inspector was plainly right to reach the conclusion that he did.”
Property developer who built a home disguised as a barn defeats council eviction bid
Alan Beesley and his wife were granted planning permission to build a barn for agricultural use only, but instead built a three bedroomed house with gym (although externally it looked like a barn with farm machinery on the outside.)
However, when faced with eviction by Welwyn Hatfield Council, the Court of Appeal ruled that the couple had acted within the law and had achieved immunity for the use of the building as a dwelling. This is because owners living in a property for four years are entitled to a certificate of lawfulness even if they fail to get the correct approvals (as Mr Fidler had applied for in the above case).
The Judge in the case admitted that it was a “a surprising outcome which decent law-abiding citizens will find incomprehensible”, but the case was a lesson for local planning authorities.
Comment
The average person who has spent a large amount of money on a construction, innocently believing that consent was not required only to be ordered to demolish it, such as in Cliff Richard’s case, is going to be devastated. Our advice is to always seek the advice of the local authority before carrying out any works whatsoever, particularly in conservation areas and especially with listed buildings. The local authorities are used to such requests and are generally very helpful.
With regard to the other two cases where there was no innocence apparently. It will be difficult for people to understand why the results were so opposite. (It will be interesting to see the decision in the next similar case).
In Mr Fidler’s case, it could be that his “Castle” had not been built to building regulation standards, was obviously not checked at each phase by an inspector as is usual if you have applied for formal consents, and presumably did not have the benefit of an NHBC (or similar) guarantee which could render it unmortgageable and therefore unsaleable had it been allowed to remain. I suspect that Mr Fiddler did not intend to sell it in the forseeable future, but you also have to consider if it is structurally sound, with his family living there. Building regulations are issued for reasons such as safety.
Similarly, Mr and Mrs Beesley will not have NHBC (or similar) cover, which will be an issue if they ever decide to sell the property. I would imagine that a surveyor would also have difficulty putting a value on such an unusual dwelling for mortgage purposes, as I doubt that there is anything comparable to it anywhere, let alone in the neighbourhood!
If you have any queries on the consents required for extensions or erections, please do not hesitate to contact us. We have property and planning experts available to assist.