Forum Topic

Is this apocryphal?

One of my colleagues who lives Hanwell/Southall area claims that a person in his road extended a launderette upwards and backwards and turned it into flats without seeking planning permission. He then rented it out and continues to pay the fines as after five years the matter will have to be dropped. The income from the flats more than pays the fine and still makes a profit. Is this likely to be true?

Andrew Mcauley ● 4724d19 Comments

Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) have to be registered.If you suspect that a house is an unlicensed HMO then report it.You can even do it onine.https://secure.ealing.gov.uk/site/scripts/xforms_form.php?formID=99&language=en

Nigel Brooks ● 4716d

It is all these house conversions too which don't have proper consents.  Some are probably Houses in Multiple Occupation and should be licenced. Some of these landlords are not providing good and safe enough accommodation for their tenants and then neighbours in the street have to put up with the result.  It is better to check that there are permissions and that the work is what there is permission for.I suspect if you don't pay tax on the income from rent then it is easier to pay off any fines that you might incur.

Philippa Bond ● 4716d

My mistake if we had moved onto 'beds in sheds' in which case it's not just the toilet that requires both building consent.Personally, I believe it would be simple to implement a piece of 'no overnight accommodation' legislation on such structures and then enforce it.

Nigel Brooks ● 4716d

On extensions I agree.I thought we had moved on to a "beds in sheds" scenario.My mistake if we had not.

Tony Colliver ● 4716d

Just checked the Planning Portal and it is clear that a new bathroom and toilet only require Building Regs.Verbatim from the site."If you are creating a new bathroom – in a new extension, for instance – you will need to get building regulations approval". Therefore neighbours would not be notified.

Nigel Brooks ● 4716d

Unfortunately there seem to be some people who make very poor conversions with no permissions and approvals at all.  Neighbours could then find that because of the poor quality of the conversions and the lack of amenity space (eg bin space) that rubbish is thrown straight out into the street, they have constantly changing neighbours who do not get on with each other because there is no floor strengthening and no sound insulation between dwellings causing tension, and everybody is at risk of fire because of no or inadequate fire separation between dwellings.It is worth checking what permission has been granted and that that is what is being built.

Philippa Bond ● 4716d

Not quite.*Anything* with a toilet is going to require planning - whether it qualifies as "permitted" on size or not.

Tony Colliver ● 4716d

If it meets building regulations and the work in undertaken by accredited and competent persons then they should not, else every minor job would cost even more than it does at the moment.

Nigel Brooks ● 4716d

Where safety and sanitation is concerned the neighbours should be concerned.

Philippa Bond ● 4716d

If it is permitted development guidelines then full planning does not necessarily have to be sought and notices may not have been issued.Extensions under permitted development right can be surprisingly large depending on the size of the original property.All that would be required is compliance with building regulations which, save for party wall alterations, is of no concern to neighbouring properties who would not be consulted.

Nigel Brooks ● 4716d

If there is a family living in there then it is definitely not within permitted development guidelines without the necessary permissions having been sought first.At the moment Ealing & Hounslow have extra funds for dealing with these so-called "beds in sheds", so now may be the right time to rattle their cage as they just might do something for a change.

Tony Colliver ● 4717d

That wouldn't mean that Building Regs weren't required though.Always copy your letters outside so that there is no chance of something not having been received and no action being taken.  You have to keep following up and be worried when you think you are getting somewhere - and keep following up!

Philippa Bond ● 4717d

If you get nowhere with a request to Planning for an explanation (also contact your councillors).It could be that it is, although seemingly large, within permitted development guidelines and no planning permission is therefore required.If that is not the case and you get nowhere contact the Ombudsman Service (I recall they are in Millbank Tower) and they will take you through the maladministration process.

Nigel Brooks ● 4717d

After paying nearly £1500 for planning permission, and god knows how much for council inspections during my extension build, the house behind mine has put up a very large extension without either. The neighbours and myself complained to the council during the build, but no inspector came.  This was last year and still no-one has bothered to come and see it.There is a family living inside it now so I'm sure its there for good, but as there was no inspections to make sure it was built right, surely it must be bulldozed on health and safety grounds.Also it sets a precedent for others that these legal requirements are no longer needed.

John Totes ● 4717d

Surely the amnesty that comes in after five years applies only if the transgression never came to light, which is clearly not the case here. I've no specialist knowledge, just saying what seems logical.

Susan Kelly ● 4723d

If true it suggests that the fines are inadequate; surely they should be increased if the rogue landlord fails to comply after numerous notices/fines.I'd up the fine to £25000 per flat for the second fine and take possession of the property if the fine remains unpaid.Time to get tough with these takers of the pee.

John Walker ● 4724d

If it is him they couldn't bulldoze without taking out lots of other properties :)

Penny Crocker ● 4724d

Thanks Nigel. Quite likely. My colleague claims that he keeps being fined and keeps paying confident that limitations will kick in. Seems strange that it's not just bulldozed?

Andrew Mcauley ● 4724d

Would that be Leighton Road, Ealing perchance?If so, I am sure that there was a laundrette that was 'over-developed' (more flats built than on the plans) and there was a significant fine. Whether that has been paid is another matter.

Nigel Brooks ● 4724d