Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Illegal Conversions- Why Are They Allowed to Stand?
I was just looking at the recent LCSP minutes and noted two points (below) on conversions. One seems to have to be converted back to a house, the other can remain as flats.
I have never understood why something can be converted to a flat/HMO and just because it has managed to go un-noted for whatever length of time is allowed it may benefit from retrospective permissions to remain as such, even though at the time the work was carried out the planning regulations would have stipulated that the conversion could not go ahead.
Can someone educate me as to why there is such a 'statue of limitations' on what were, and should still be, illegal conversions? What is the difference between these two properties?
*****************
41 Umfreville Road, N4
- The LCSP joined local residents in objecting to an application for a certificate of lawfulness for 4 flats at this address, on the grounds that this property had only recently been converted. However, LBH Planning have agreed to the change of use, stating that the evidence provided ‘on balance’ demonstrates that the flat conversion occurred over 4 years ago.
74 Burgoyne Road, N4
- This property was turned into 4 flats several years ago, without appropriate permissions.
- The LCSP’s objections, along with those of other local residents, were upheld by LBH Planning/Enforcement, and the owner appealed to the Planning Inspectorate.
This appeal has now been dismissed, and the property must revert to its previous configuration of 2 flats
Tags for Forum Posts: HMOs, illegal conversions
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Given the amount of money involved I wonder what lengths "developers" will go to to make sure that the panning department grant them a Certificate of Lawfulness...
-
Permalink Reply by Jamie To on
-
I have a similar problem. I am sure this is happening all around Haringey. Brent Council, Barnet Council and other boroughs deal with issues like this, but Haringey do absolutely nothing. It is disgusting.
-
-
- property sites that are being overdeveloped and then over-occupied with tenants for no other reason than the landlord’s financial gain; and
- A house being granted planning permission where it is believed that the proper and lawful procedure has not been followed accordingly. In regards to this particular concern, just under 60 households (circa 97%) on this part of the road previously signed a petition objecting to planning being granted. This particular application was subsequently refused by The Planning Inspectorate. Haringey Council have now granted planning permission without notifying the impacted households of its consideration during the planning process. This is despite the fact that all of the grounds for the previous 4 refusals still stand.
-
Permalink Reply by JJ B on
-
I had a conversation about this with an eState agent on West Green rd and he said you can get what you want here planning wise. Is that true then?
Question to ask is... Who gains and how?
Qui profite du crime?
-
Permalink Reply by HarringayBirder on
-
I'm not a planning lawyer but I would want to find out
(1) whether the Council had the power to grant planning permission given the decision of the Planning Inspectorate
(2) whether the rules governing the process by which planning decisions are made were properly observed by the person or body making the decision
(3) whether the decision made to grant permission was so unreasonable that no sensible person could have made it.
If the answer to either (1) or (2) is no, and / or the answer to (3) is yes, then the decision is likely to be susceptible to judicial review.
What I can say is that a death threat should be reported immediately to the police; this is a very serious offence, and will be dealt with accordingly. On conviction (and there is a good chance this would happen even on acquittal) the defendant is likely to have a restraining order made which would prevent him or her from eg visiting the address, contacting the victim etc.
-
-
Thanks HarringayBirder
-
Permalink Reply by Alison P on
-
Good question Justin - I've never understood the logic here. I can't think of many other areas of life where you do something wrong but so long as you cover it up long enough you get forgiven... It's a really bad system and just encourages landlords to break the law, convert, and keep their fingers crossed. Had happened to a number of houses near me.
Jamie To, sorry to hear your story. Have you tried to involve your local councillor? If not that might be worth doing.
-
Permalink Reply by Karen Alexander on
-
This has been something we have been battling ever since I was elected on 2006. It's hugely complicated and disappointing that Haringey planning can't get a grip on it. Planning laws are evolving of course so I will take the questions here away and get some answers for you.
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Guest on
-
But the fundamental question goes unanswered Karen. Why can you benefit from something you knew was wrong at the time, but have managed to cover up or avoid detection for a period of time so as to benefit from that action. If I rob your house and steal your possessions, just because I did not get caught for 4 years does not mean I get to keep your stuff! I do not understand why these dwellings are not forced to convert back to their previous situation.
Either:
1. National law sets out how councils must act, and it is national law we must blame
2. There is an active policy locally to allow things to stand after a certain length of time (active acceptance), or
3. Bureaucratic inefficiency and inertia- as a result of the council/officers not being bothered (passive acceptance)
To my mind, only the first is acceptable (not that I am happy with it).
If you can tell me whether Haringey have the power to stop these conversions normalising their legal status I would appreciate it.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Justin - national planning regulations allow certification of lawfulness for a development if it has escaped prosecution for a certain length of him. However, it is down to the local planning authority (in London that's the local council) to police the system.
Even for the most efffective planning authorities, proving that the development has not been in place for the amount of time the property owner claims can be very difficult and the decsion is often taken on the balance of probabilities and the impact of the development. Even if the local authority judges that the development is illegal the owner can always appeal this decision to the Planning Inspectorate.
The major problem is enforcement. There is no statutory requirement for a planning authority to have dedicated planning enforcement staff. Most do but recruitment to these posts isn't easy as it's not a particularly attractive job after you have done X years of study to get your planning qualification.
Some authorities have got around this by using non-qualified inspectors, often ex-police, who understand evidence gathering and interviewing to PACE standards. If they feel there is a case to answer they then escalate the case to a qualfied planner for prosecution.
I have no idea of the system Haringey uses but over the years this site has been full of discussions about unlawful conversions and developments and the seeming lack of enforcement. I think this breeds an attitude in some property owners that they might as well try it on as they may have a good chance of getting away with it.
PS - the government is planning to relax the need for planning permission further so this can only get worse.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
