guff
Posts: 730 
Likes: 706
|
Post by guff on Jan 9, 2017 18:54:41 GMT
Para 1.1 of the Appellant's final comments on the planning portal says that "The Council suggests that T** C***** does not benefit from planning permission for use as a single family dwelling house."
I would have thought this would be a major stumbling block for any normal purchaser but they seem to assume that because the top floor was used as residential for the owner of the boat yard it has always been residential.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jan 9, 2017 19:04:00 GMT
What I don't understand with this loan is why all the applications for change of use from restaurant to single family dwelling were withdrawn in 2012 and seemingly not-reapplied for? No-one would buy this knowing they could not legally leave in it? As someone else pointed out, as far as I can see, there has been no application since to turn it into a dwelling. I'm not sure how easy change of use from/to residential is, but surely you'd think they would have applied some time ago, before putting it on the market? Going to do a lot of digging into this. Was looking for something unrelated (PP for the vehicular access) and found this statement from the appeal (30 August 2016 - the appeal was dismissed BTW)... I don't think the C****t has any PP in place to be a Residential Dwelling. Will keep digging ...
|
|
guff
Posts: 730
Likes: 706
|
Post by guff on Jan 9, 2017 19:50:00 GMT
I don't think the Chalet has any PP in place to be a Residential Dwelling. Will keep digging ... I haven't found any either. Gold plated barge pole with Italian marble handle time.
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 1,570
|
Post by GeorgeT on Jan 9, 2017 20:18:23 GMT
I don't think the Chalet has any PP in place to be a Residential Dwelling. Will keep digging ... I haven't found any either. Gold plated barge pole with Italian marble handle time. one would hope that saving streams solicitors have picked up on this massive point in the last couple of days and that the loan will be withdrawn at the last minute. it appears to be the case that the valuer was instructed on the wrong basis and that the valuation is totally hypothetical in that this chalet does not have planning permission to be a single residential dwelling at all and therefore its value is a fraction of what it has been valued at .
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 2,947
Likes: 4,328
|
Post by ozboy on Jan 9, 2017 20:24:16 GMT
This is very serious now. As previously noted, the Valuer's Report clearly and unambiguously states:-
"Planning
The Property comes under the Use Class of – C3 Dwelling Houses." (sic).
This Valuer is both RICS and FCA Regulated, so is this a case of Gross Negligence?
As a secondary, the "Report" is the biggest laughable puff piece I have read in yonks, it's a sales brochure more than a Valuation Report.
IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by d_saver on Jan 9, 2017 20:34:03 GMT
I've drawn a blank on-line so far. Any buyers surveyor would surely want this clarified given the state of the online public info. The change of use of the property to a restaurant was clearly granted, but prior usage (apart from it being part of a boatyard) was not stated. A requirement of that permission was that the development be begun within 3 years. Assuming it did not begin and this permission was then withdrawn I assume the property reverts back to it's previous usage, but I still can't find what that was, officially. It's clear the seller considers it residential of late, though even he applied for change to residential in the beginning so must have thought he needed it. There are comments about it's listed status, industrial usage, being a boat shed, tea room, etc. Some of the docs are too old to be online. Seems it's well known for not being an entire dwelling in the past and this is commented on in the planing docs. The valuation states it's usage class, but not clear to me they are categorically saying it has permission for that, or that's the use class it falls under when used/valued as a residence.
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 1,570
|
Post by GeorgeT on Jan 9, 2017 20:37:05 GMT
This is very serious now. As previously noted, the Valuer's Report clearly and unambiguously states:- "Planning
The Property comes under the Use Class of – C3 Dwelling Houses." (sic). This Valuer is both RICS and FCA Regulated, so is this a case of Gross Negligence? As a secondary, the "Report" is the biggest laughable puff piece I have read in yonks, it's a sales brochure more than a Valuation Report. IMHO. I suggest we would need to see a copy of the valuers letter of instruction and information he was given and what enquiries he was asked to make and not make before we could jump to a hard conclusion on this. it is not uncommon for People instructing valuers to give them certain information and tell them it is correct and tell them not to make any enquiries on those areas because they already have that information and want it valued on that basis and that often happens when there is an attempt to get the wrong figure and more often an attempt to keep the Fee down because the less work the valuer does and less enquiries the valuer makes the cheaper the fee. normally checking out planning matters and doing planning searches and so forth is something the solicitor does before the deal completes
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jan 9, 2017 20:39:39 GMT
This is very serious now. As previously noted, the Valuer's Report clearly and unambiguously states:- "Planning
The Property comes under the Use Class of – C3 Dwelling Houses." (sic). This Valuer is both RICS and FCA Regulated, so is this a case of Gross Negligence? As a secondary, the "Report" is the biggest laughable puff piece I have read in yonks, it's a sales brochure more than a Valuation Report. IMHO. Well... it does contain a sales brochure  The surveyor's responsibility is present a valuation based on the information provided to him. This is, after all, a valuation report, not a full blown survey It's up to the DD team at SS to make sure the details behind the security is above board... and if that fails then it is a key reason investors should be carrying out DD. I was happy with loan earlier... not so much now (although I may take a nibble out of the R******)
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 663
|
Post by seeingred on Jan 9, 2017 21:10:40 GMT
Quote from selling agents who describe it as a building or a property not a house or a home.
There are only two references to 'house' in the sales particulars (AUCTION HOUSE, being a part description of the selling agents). They use the word HOME once - ill advised I think.
"It should not be assumed that the property has all necessary planning, building regulation or other consents. Purchasers must satisfy themselves by inspection or otherwise. "
The text on the SS description is lifted from a sales brochure I believe.
The two loans are strongly linked - see the SS particulars near the bottom - when you've made it through the sales blurb.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 2,947
Likes: 4,328
|
Post by ozboy on Jan 9, 2017 22:13:59 GMT
Is this Valuation Report unfit for purpose and the subsequent enticingly low LTVs completely unacceptable, or even misleading?
If so, everyone seems to be tolerating this as allowable and normal?!
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,449
Likes: 2,319
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 9, 2017 22:31:06 GMT
There's a quote from the owner/borrower in the Daily Mail article...
This made me wonder... The sort of people who would buy a house like this probably would have other houses and would divide their time between them. So is the PP for use as a dwelling needed if the person doesn't live there all year? Might this be a PP loophole?
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 2,947
Likes: 4,328
|
Post by ozboy on Jan 9, 2017 23:09:06 GMT
You're no doubt monitoring this topic SS so why haven't you commented yet, particularly regarding your in-house DD/checking and the arguably highly misleading Valuation Report and subsequent low LTVs?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 9,968
Likes: 10,029
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 9, 2017 23:27:20 GMT
This is very serious now. As previously noted, the Valuer's Report clearly and unambiguously states:- "Planning
The Property comes under the Use Class of – C3 Dwelling Houses." (sic). This Valuer is both RICS and FCA Regulated, so is this a case of Gross Negligence? As a secondary, the "Report" is the biggest laughable puff piece I have read in yonks, it's a sales brochure more than a Valuation Report. IMHO. Well... it does contain a sales brochure The surveyor's responsibility is present a valuation based on the information provided to him. This is, after all, a valuation report, not a full blown survey It's up to the DD team at SS to make sure the details behind the security is above board... and if that fails then it is a key reason investors should be carrying out DD. I was happy with loan earlier... not so much now (although I may take a nibble out of the R******) The instructions to the valuer are pretty specific 4.1 & 4.14 'In your report you should specifically address the following 4.1 A full decription of the Property ....planning history 4.14 You shouild state what planning enquiries have been made & their results. Tou should specifically give details if planning permission in relation to the Property is subject to any special conditions ....' None of this is documented in the valuation, just a statement that it has C3 permission. Previous SS valuations have clearly stated that they have viewed online planning sites or spoken to the council and give planning reference numbers. All they seem have done is read the brochure, asked a few local estate agents, taken a few pictures (Im sure the reindeer enhance the value) and admired the 365 degree view (error lifted from the brochure) Not even a map!
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,056
Likes: 2,679
|
Post by elliotn on Jan 10, 2017 3:43:07 GMT
I was happy with loan earlier... not so much now (although I may take a nibble out of the R******) As these are cross collateralised and to be 'inextricably linked from an investors [sic] point of view' would a discerning nibble suggest a preference is still worthwhile as any deficit would effectively sit as a 2nd charge on the other loan? These loans would be gone at 100 days but term holders might get caught up in time consuming entanglements should there be material issues on one of the propertires.
|
|
lobster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 636
Likes: 467
|
Post by lobster on Jan 10, 2017 7:07:34 GMT
savingstream As a matter of urgency prior to launching the loan , could you please confirm that the correct planning permission is definitely in place for this loan to proceed. If not, you surely have no alternative but to cancel the launch, because the valuation report has most certainly made the assumption that the correct PP is indeed in place.
|
|
