Please does anyone have any ideas how I can prove that an empty property is a "house" not "flats"?
Until Dec 07, a neighbouring terraced property was a three bed house, occupied by two sisters and the son of one of them. The house was sold to a developer in Dec 07 and has stood empty ever since.
The developer wants to turn it into a 5 storey block of flats. He's tried applying before and the application was rejected because the square footage of the house is too small to permit conversion from a house to flats. Now he's trying again and this time he's saying "it's been flats for 4 years".
The same family lived there since the 60s. But the complication is that (as a hang over from the 50s) there were two sets of electric & gas meters.
I believe the Council tax and water rates were paid based on the whole house & by just one of the sisters. However, the Council say this isn't enough evidence that it was a house.
Deadline for objections is 22 July.
Planning Permission - Advice Needed
Oh dear, Lee. I was just about to start a thread about Land Registry, having just had a telephone call from them.
I had a rant on this site some months ago about Land Registry, when I had been trying to find the house deeds for my house. In what now seems a remarkably good deal, Land Registry at Chancery Lane charged me £10 to view each file for my house (4 files for this 1870 property) plus £10 per photocopied document.
The hitch was that Chancery Lane only allowed one hour with the file. I had to go twice to get through everything & even then I may well have missed something, as there are dozens of documents in each of the 4 files.
Anyway, like you Lee, I thought Land Registry might solve the flats/house issue. So, I decided to order up the file(s) for the neighbouring property and this time requested they be sent to the Land Registry office in Croydon.
Croydon have just phoned me to say they've got the files but it's £10 to view each and every document. That would be hundreds and hundreds of pounds! They won't even tell me what's in each document ... they sit across the desk and hand them across one at a time, while the £10s add up. Even a glance would cost £10 - a photocopy £10 - even to tell me what the document is without my actually looking at it £10.
I said "surely under the Freedom of Information Act" I can at least see the file for my own property. They said "we're not covered by that Act".
Grrr ...
I had a rant on this site some months ago about Land Registry, when I had been trying to find the house deeds for my house. In what now seems a remarkably good deal, Land Registry at Chancery Lane charged me £10 to view each file for my house (4 files for this 1870 property) plus £10 per photocopied document.
The hitch was that Chancery Lane only allowed one hour with the file. I had to go twice to get through everything & even then I may well have missed something, as there are dozens of documents in each of the 4 files.
Anyway, like you Lee, I thought Land Registry might solve the flats/house issue. So, I decided to order up the file(s) for the neighbouring property and this time requested they be sent to the Land Registry office in Croydon.
Croydon have just phoned me to say they've got the files but it's £10 to view each and every document. That would be hundreds and hundreds of pounds! They won't even tell me what's in each document ... they sit across the desk and hand them across one at a time, while the £10s add up. Even a glance would cost £10 - a photocopy £10 - even to tell me what the document is without my actually looking at it £10.
I said "surely under the Freedom of Information Act" I can at least see the file for my own property. They said "we're not covered by that Act".
Grrr ...
As long as the request is in writing then they are obliged to give you the information for free - or for a nominal charge under the FOI Act. (i.e. not £10 a sheet!)
Have a look here: http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/access/ ... 1/foi_act/
Have a look here: http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/access/ ... 1/foi_act/
I did it online and it cost me £3. If you look it up online it will also say if its one address or 34 flat a 34 flat b. Generally if it's flats they will have separate addresses. The post office website will also help, you can search up to 3 postcodes/addresses a day.
I had problems selling my flat before with the land registry when they dealt in actual paper when I tried to register the extended lease. It took 8 months!
I had problems selling my flat before with the land registry when they dealt in actual paper when I tried to register the extended lease. It took 8 months!
Well they say the Freedom of Information Act doesn't apply:
"This is because s.21, FOIA 2000 makes information exempt from the FOIA 2000 when it is “reasonably accessible by other means”. For this reason we claim exemption under s.21 as the information is already accessible through our rules."
Under their "rules" they can basically charge what they like. This to me makes a nonsense of the FOIA. I don't consider £10 per document "reasonable".
The public can view files under the LRR2003 "as a right", but the online fee structure is very unclear. The Public Guide says fee information "not available", however another part of the website says "£10 for any and all documents" [in a file].
I shall keep trying.
"This is because s.21, FOIA 2000 makes information exempt from the FOIA 2000 when it is “reasonably accessible by other means”. For this reason we claim exemption under s.21 as the information is already accessible through our rules."
Under their "rules" they can basically charge what they like. This to me makes a nonsense of the FOIA. I don't consider £10 per document "reasonable".
The public can view files under the LRR2003 "as a right", but the online fee structure is very unclear. The Public Guide says fee information "not available", however another part of the website says "£10 for any and all documents" [in a file].
I shall keep trying.
Hi Lee: I checked the postcode finder & it's definitely one address.
Sadly the last online Land Registry information about the house is from the 1960s. The Property Developer bought it in Dec 07 and that information isn't yet online.
This is his 2nd Planning Application on the house. The first attempt was rejected by the Council in February, on the grounds that the square footage is too small under Council rules to permit conversion to flats. It's a rule designed to protect family houses.
This is why the Developer has decided that it was already flats.
Sadly the last online Land Registry information about the house is from the 1960s. The Property Developer bought it in Dec 07 and that information isn't yet online.
This is his 2nd Planning Application on the house. The first attempt was rejected by the Council in February, on the grounds that the square footage is too small under Council rules to permit conversion to flats. It's a rule designed to protect family houses.
This is why the Developer has decided that it was already flats.
Ahh, so he's saying it has been flats for 4 years - ie it was converted to flats in 2004 or 2005?
Do these plans (or any plans you can dig up from the estate agent) show the layout of the house. I'm basically thinking that if these show that there is only one main door, and only one kitchen and/or one bathroom then it was obviously a house rather than self-contained flats?
If they do show a house (rather than flats) layout then surely it could not have been changed to flats since without this showing up in a new set of deeds (or planning permissions etc).
(Sorry if I'm missing the point here..!)
Do these plans (or any plans you can dig up from the estate agent) show the layout of the house. I'm basically thinking that if these show that there is only one main door, and only one kitchen and/or one bathroom then it was obviously a house rather than self-contained flats?
If they do show a house (rather than flats) layout then surely it could not have been changed to flats since without this showing up in a new set of deeds (or planning permissions etc).
(Sorry if I'm missing the point here..!)
If it was converted into flats then it has to show up on the land registry.
it will also have a freeholder and the flats will be leasehold. This again has to show up on the land registry.
Even if the flats are share of freehold, the freehold is separate. I'd say that the developer is lyi...I mean mistaken.
I don't know if you can check, but the council should be able to tell you if planning permission was granted in the past for flats. If permission was granted but the work wasn't carried out then the land registry would still show it as being a house. I believe that the permission to turn it into flats would also have run out if it was more than a certain amount of years old.
Worth a look.
Good luck anyway. One thing that's nice about Sydenham is that a lot of the incredible streets in the area are still houses and haven't been converted into flats.
it will also have a freeholder and the flats will be leasehold. This again has to show up on the land registry.
Even if the flats are share of freehold, the freehold is separate. I'd say that the developer is lyi...I mean mistaken.
I don't know if you can check, but the council should be able to tell you if planning permission was granted in the past for flats. If permission was granted but the work wasn't carried out then the land registry would still show it as being a house. I believe that the permission to turn it into flats would also have run out if it was more than a certain amount of years old.
Worth a look.
Good luck anyway. One thing that's nice about Sydenham is that a lot of the incredible streets in the area are still houses and haven't been converted into flats.
This is a ridiculous reply by the council. Did you make an objection in writing? Also if you are serious you could get a solicitor to draft a letter (this would cost money) but would cause the council to seriously improve their performance as they would be afraid that you have the intention of appealing their decision. Also get as many neighbours as possible to sign letters themselves (you can always just give them copies and post them yourself if they are not too proactive themselves).
The developer seems to be applying for a 'certificate of lawfulness' which requires them to prove their case, not vice-versa. Here is a summary of the process: http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/Residents ... ulness.asp
You should be able to view all of their information and see if it stacks up. If they have submitted no proof but are just counting on a lazy planning department to wave it through then you should be able to wake them up by a strongly worded letter showing you are aware of the legal situation.
The developer seems to be applying for a 'certificate of lawfulness' which requires them to prove their case, not vice-versa. Here is a summary of the process: http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/Residents ... ulness.asp
You should be able to view all of their information and see if it stacks up. If they have submitted no proof but are just counting on a lazy planning department to wave it through then you should be able to wake them up by a strongly worded letter showing you are aware of the legal situation.
Oh that's really interesting Adrian. It could explain why they're stating the house has been divided as flats for "four years". I wondered why they'd picked on that date, since nothing's changed in the house since the 1960s.
The Planning Officer has agreed to have a look inside the house - hopefully that should help our case. But I will definitely ask to be supplied with the evidence.
I typed a leaflet, which I've been putting through neighbour's letter boxes and I think we'll get quite a lot of support.
And ... what the heck, I may as well say it ...
It's 36 Kirkdale. Yes, it's in need of some TLC and a bit of cash spent on it - but it still has the original Victorian room layout - even has the (I think original) outside loo. It's part of the Sydenham Hill/Kirkdale Conservation Area and could make somebody a really lovely family home.
What it doesn't need is a box on the roof, a basement dug out for extra rooms, an additional two-storey extension at the back and basically being squeezed till the pips squeak.
The Planning Officer has agreed to have a look inside the house - hopefully that should help our case. But I will definitely ask to be supplied with the evidence.
I typed a leaflet, which I've been putting through neighbour's letter boxes and I think we'll get quite a lot of support.
And ... what the heck, I may as well say it ...
It's 36 Kirkdale. Yes, it's in need of some TLC and a bit of cash spent on it - but it still has the original Victorian room layout - even has the (I think original) outside loo. It's part of the Sydenham Hill/Kirkdale Conservation Area and could make somebody a really lovely family home.
What it doesn't need is a box on the roof, a basement dug out for extra rooms, an additional two-storey extension at the back and basically being squeezed till the pips squeak.
Regarding planning submission information Lewisham should post everything on their website. often you need the planning application reference. You can also view any current applications at the planning office free of charge. There should be plans of the existing layout to compare with what was proposed.
Conservation Area law should give you added clout particularly regarding extensions. Anything that significantly changes the public appearance should not be allowed though they may get away with a more boxy extension at the back but even that is frowned on in Conservation Areas. Each borough planning department usually has online guidance regarding extensions. They should also have a Conservation Area assessment which will give an idea of what is permitted. They usually say that changes to the external appearance of period properties is not allowed.
Good luck.
Conservation Area law should give you added clout particularly regarding extensions. Anything that significantly changes the public appearance should not be allowed though they may get away with a more boxy extension at the back but even that is frowned on in Conservation Areas. Each borough planning department usually has online guidance regarding extensions. They should also have a Conservation Area assessment which will give an idea of what is permitted. They usually say that changes to the external appearance of period properties is not allowed.
Good luck.
They have applied for Planning Permission & the Council did send me a letter about it. The plans are tricky because they don't show all measurements. For example, the developer plans to extend a tiny bit of wall that sticks out on the first floor back in order to create a bathroom above the kitchen. This will cut down on light levels in the garden, kitchen & sitting room of the house next door.
There are no measurements given, but the Council say it's possible to work them out by scaling up the drawing. Of course, once plans are photocopied and scanned & put online, then the scales on those copies aren't reliable to work out measurements.
The same applies to the dormer box type extension on the roof - no measurements.
The statement that the house is already flats is because at his last attempt the developer's plans were kicked out because he stated (quite truthfully) that it was a house and gave an accurate square footage which was below the level required by the Council to permit turning houses into flats. It's because of the rejection on those grounds that he's now decided the house has been flats for four years.
The complication for us is that one of the ladies who lived there was housebound & so she had a kitchen on the top floor, which made life a lot easier for her.
Her sister couldn't climb the stairs at all and so she had a shower and bedroom on the ground floor.
There were no locks on internal doors and the rooms were the traditional Victorian layout. It was just a house with showers & kitchens that made life easier for the sisters, who were in their 80s. It's not like self contained flats; not even like having a separate granny flat.
I shall ask the Council to send me details of the evidence submitted by the builder that it is flats.
A Council officer put up a planning notice outside the house on Thursday, giving a deadline for objections of 30th July. Interestingly, one had already been given to the Developer to put up but he had put it on a wheely bin in the garden of the house, and it couldn't be seen from the pavement unless you knew it was there.
There are no measurements given, but the Council say it's possible to work them out by scaling up the drawing. Of course, once plans are photocopied and scanned & put online, then the scales on those copies aren't reliable to work out measurements.
The same applies to the dormer box type extension on the roof - no measurements.
The statement that the house is already flats is because at his last attempt the developer's plans were kicked out because he stated (quite truthfully) that it was a house and gave an accurate square footage which was below the level required by the Council to permit turning houses into flats. It's because of the rejection on those grounds that he's now decided the house has been flats for four years.
The complication for us is that one of the ladies who lived there was housebound & so she had a kitchen on the top floor, which made life a lot easier for her.
Her sister couldn't climb the stairs at all and so she had a shower and bedroom on the ground floor.
There were no locks on internal doors and the rooms were the traditional Victorian layout. It was just a house with showers & kitchens that made life easier for the sisters, who were in their 80s. It's not like self contained flats; not even like having a separate granny flat.
I shall ask the Council to send me details of the evidence submitted by the builder that it is flats.
A Council officer put up a planning notice outside the house on Thursday, giving a deadline for objections of 30th July. Interestingly, one had already been given to the Developer to put up but he had put it on a wheely bin in the garden of the house, and it couldn't be seen from the pavement unless you knew it was there.
I've just been advised by someone who works in Housing that the fact that a kitchenette was installed somewhere other than the main kitchen and a shower/loo somewhere other than the main bathroom could mean that the Developer could argue that it has been used as flats, even though it was all one family.
This is really alarming, as it sounds as though this could apply to any house that has ever had a granny flat or en suite installed.
Anyone any experience on this aspect?
This is really alarming, as it sounds as though this could apply to any house that has ever had a granny flat or en suite installed.
Anyone any experience on this aspect?
I think that you still have the edge in terms of the evidence on offer. Ensure that there is no further documentary evidence on offer. Write a letter stating your knowledge of the familty and the reason for the additional kitchenette. This does not qualify as flats. To prove this there would have to be some documentary evidence of separate ownership e.g. leasehold agreements, previous planning applications etc. Are there separate front doors or do you have to enter the main house to get to the kitchenette area in the existing layout? A suite of rooms within a unit with only one front door does no qualify as a flat. If they are claiming it is a flat and there are not separate fire compartments etc then it is breach of health and safety law.
Remember to write letters because they have to print them for the Planning Committee.
Remember to write letters because they have to print them for the Planning Committee.