intouch

When a local authority is threatening enforcement action, the top priority for our claims team is to find a resolution that is in the best interest of our policyholder, as quickly and efficiently as possible, to minimise any disruption they might face. But, as this recent claim shows, sometimes, due to circumstances out of our control, the process can end up being slower than you might expect.

Business as usual

In December 2022, we were contacted by solicitors who were looking to obtain a lack of planning consent policy for a residential property. They were acting on behalf of their client, Mrs A, who had purchased a terrace property in 2019 that had been converted into two flats without the necessary planning permission. The flats had both been rented out since the purchase, but Mrs A was now planning to move into the smaller one herself and sell the other, and her solicitors had recommended getting a policy for the property to protect her and any future buyers. 

Enquiries relating to properties that have been converted into flats without planning permission always require careful consideration. These changes tend to attract more attention from local authorities than other more typical alteration works, and stricter enforcement rules over longer time periods apply too. Many local authorities are known to actively clamp down on unauthorised flat conversions, especially in London, where enforcement action is more likely. 

As such, we requested evidence to confirm when the conversion work was completed, and that both flats had been occupied continually since then. The solicitor confirmed that the conversion had taken place just under four years ago, and provided tenancy agreements for both flats covering the whole period. As there had been no relevant contact with the local authority to obtain retrospective consent for the conversion works, or any indication of enforcement action, we felt comfortable accepting the risk and issued cover for £695 with a policy limit of £900,000. 

Contact from the council

Just three months later, in late February 2023, the policyholder, Mrs A, received a letter from the council, informing her that they had become aware of an alleged breach of planning control following the property’s conversion to two flats. The letter stated the council’s intention to take enforcement action, and gave her just two weeks to respond. Understandably concerned, she contacted our claims team.

After an initial assessment of the local authority’s letter and the timeline of events, it was clear to our team that because the flats had not been in place for a full four years, they couldn’t secure a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use – our preferred strategy in these types of claim. Instead, the only realistic course of action was to submit a fresh application for retrospective consent. With this decision made, our first step was to appoint a planning consultant, who contacted the council to inform them that Mrs A intended to submit the application, and to ask them to extend the deadline for a response by 21 days to be able to do so. 

Time well spent

The planning consultant used the extra time to assess the flats during a visit to the property, and to review other planning applications submitted for the same street. The results of the initial site visit weren’t entirely positive. The ground-floor flat had two bedrooms, while the first-floor flat had three bedrooms over two floors, including one in a converted loft, and offered no access to the garden. The planning consultant’s primary concern was that the flats might not meet the minimum floorspace requirements set by the local council, so we appointed an architect to measure the floorspace and produce plans for the retrospective planning application. 

The results were better than expected, as the architect’s drawings confirmed that the flats did meet the minimum legal requirements. But based on the findings, the planning consultant recommended that the ground-floor flat be reconfigured to just one bedroom, as the second bedroom was unlikely to get consent in its current form because it had no external walls and therefore no windows, just a roof light. The first-floor flat came in well above the minimum floorspace, which the planning consultant felt would offset the lack of outside space, especially as there was a park nearby. 

New drawings reflecting the recommended changes to the ground-floor flat were made, with a new bike store added to the exterior space, and the retrospective planning application was submitted to the council in March. This was followed by an on-site meeting with the planning case officer, which seemed to go well; they agreed with our consultant’s assessment that the lack of private garden space shouldn’t be a problem due to nearby parks, and confirmed that they would likely be willing to exercise some discretion over the floorspace. We were cautiously optimistic of a positive outcome.

A week is a long time in politics…and planning disputes

Surprisingly, despite the planning officer’s positive feedback during the site visit, retrospective planning consent was refused. The main reasons cited were that they felt the conversion had reduced the overall standard of the accommodation, specifically the undersized bedrooms in the upper-floor flat, the lack of direct access to external amenity space, and the loss of a family home, which was contrary to their local planning policy. They also cited concerns about the proposed layout of the forecourt and parking space in front of the property. At the same time as refusing the planning application, an enforcement notice was issued requiring Mrs A to cease using the property as flats and reinstate it to a single dwelling within six months. 

This was an incredibly frustrating outcome, as our team felt that the planning consultant had already addressed all of the council’s concerns in the application and when meeting the planning officer, yet the decision didn’t seem to have taken any of that into account. As such, when reassessing our options for next steps, one option would be to appeal against the local authority’s decision and the subsequent enforcement notice. Alternatively, we could completely redesign the layout of the two flats in the building and submit a fresh application for planning consent, which would result in substantial building works and incur significant costs. Or, thirdly, we could accept the decision and reinstate the property to a single dwelling, which would also be a costly and a major undertaking in itself, and would inevitably result in a significant reduction in the market value of the property. While all options would be covered by the policy, our team, Mrs A and the planning consultant all agreed that submitting an appeal to challenge the local authority’s decision was the best course of action. 

The main grounds for the appeal were that the original bedroom had not been altered by the conversion works and the other room fell just under the minimum size requirements - literally by a few centimetres. Also, the local authority’s own planning policy allowed for flexibility when it came to the provision of access to an external amenity space – particularly where a property was situated close to a public park. Finally, we felt that the concerns about the outside space in front of the property could be resolved by some simple amendments to the designs for the area, which we intended to submit with the appeal. So, both appeals were drawn up, including an amended design for the forecourt on the property, and submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in August 2023.

Slow progress

It was now a case of watching and waiting, with the emphasis on the waiting. Finally, in February 2025 - some 18 months after our appeals were submitted - the Planning Inspectorate visited the property and, later that same month, issued a decision quashing the enforcement notice and granting planning permission for the flats, subject to some conditions requiring some minor additional works to fully comply. This was excellent news for Mrs A and for our team. After a protracted process, all that remained now was for the works and alterations to the flats to be completed within six months to comply with the conditions included in the approval. Our team appointed a local builder to undertake the necessary internal changes to the ground-floor flat, and adding bike and bin storage on the forecourt as agreed with the local authority, all of which was completed in early August.

The total cost covered under the policy to successfully resolve the claim was just under £17,821, which was largely made up of the cost of the building works, and professional fees - underlining the true value of the policy, which had cost £695.  

A successful outcome

With a wealth of experience and expertise to draw on, our claims team is well-equipped to assess the individual circumstances around any claim and appoint skilled professionals to work towards obtaining the best possible outcome for our policyholders. In this case, it meant we were successful in challenging a local authority’s planning enforcement notice and were able to avoid returning the property to a single dwelling, which would have significantly reduced its value and resulted in major building works. And as always, we supported the policyholder throughout the entire process, from the initial notice of the enforcement action to completion of the works some 23 months later – demonstrating our continued focus on excellent service, from quotation through to claims payment.