Newsline

Background

In April 2021, we were contacted by solicitors acting on behalf of clients who were purchasing a large, detached Grade II Listed property for £1.4m. The house had originally been built around 1830, and a previous owner had replaced some of the original windows with uPVC frames around 20 years beforehand without obtaining Listed Building consent. The solicitors wanted a policy to cover the buyers and their lender against the risk of the local authority taking enforcement action in the future to return the windows to their original condition. From an underwriting perspective, there were some positive factors to consider. Firstly, the existing windows had been in place for a long time, with no contact or proposed action arising from the local authority. Also, as the house itself was set back from the main road and was only accessible by a private road, it would be unlikely that the local authority would become aware of them. Finally, there had been several planning permissions granted recently for minor works to the property, none of which had drawn the attention of the planning office to the existing unauthorised windows, so we were happy to provide a policy for £160, with a policy limit of £100,000.

Nosy neighbours

Over two years later, in August 2023, we were contacted by our policyholders. They had received a letter from the local authority, informing them that an allegation of unauthorised works had been made regarding the replacement windows. The planning officer wanted to arrange an inspection to investigate the alleged breach, to determine whether any formal enforcement action would be necessary.

Our claims team’s first step was to clarify what had prompted the local authority to write to our policyholder. Their reference to an allegation being made suggested that a third party was responsible, but the team were also aware that the policyholder had submitted a planning application in April 2023 for improvements to an outbuilding - perhaps this had drawn attention to the windows? The mystery was quickly resolved by the planning officer, who confirmed to the policyholder that the allegation had been lodged by a member of the public. Satisfied that the claim hadn’t arisen as a result of any action taken by the policyholder, we asked them to arrange the inspection and waited for the results.

Council meeting 

The enforcement officer’s visit followed a few weeks later, and in mid-October the policyholder received the council’s letter with the outcome of the inspection. The meeting itself had been very positive, but, as we had expected, the letter confirmed that the six uPVC windows (in the original part of the property) did constitute a breach of planning control. The local authority concluded that the windows would need to be replaced, and planning and Listed Building consent applications for the replacements would have to be submitted within two months.

As there was no legal defence we could argue on behalf of our policyholder, our focus was on responding to the threatened enforcement action as quickly as possible. We appointed an architect to draw up the plans for the new windows and a planning consultant to manage the application process, and the full application was submitted at the beginning of February.

Slowly, slowly…

Initial progress was good, and at the end of March, Listed Building and planning consents were granted. The Council made it clear that lime putty, not foam or mastic, would need to be used for the sash window frames, which themselves would need to be oak. Keen to get started as soon as possible, our policyholder began contacting local firms to secure quotes. However, when the quotes were returned to our policyholder there was a problem – all the companies were reluctant to use oak. Instead, they all proposed using Meranti, an engineered timber which was more sustainable, more stable, and longer-lasting than oak. Taking on board these comments, the planning specialist went back to the council to ask whether Meranti would be acceptable, given it had already been approved elsewhere on the building, including four windows at the front of the house.

Frustratingly, the council’s response was very much against the suggestion, describing Meranti as a ‘cheaper and less durable alternative’, and they asked for comparative quotes using solid oak. All three quotes using Meranti came in around £35,000 and a revised oak quote was £5,000 more. The planning consultant passed the updated costings across in the hope that the additional expense would make the council more amenable to using Meranti. It worked - rather than blocking Meranti outright, they said a formal application would need to be submitted to amend the approved plans from oak to timber. Whilst this would delay the works starting, there was a clear benefit to the policyholder in following the recommendation made by all three window specialists.

Final decision

The applications were submitted in early October, and happily, at the end of November, the consents were granted, formally allowing the change of timber, and work could finally start replacing the frames! The works themselves took some time, but by July 2025 the windows were in place and all the internal ‘making good’ had been completed.

In the end, the dispute took a little over two years to resolve, costing a total of £42,500, making the £160 paid for the policy very good value. The cost of the claim was made up of professional fees to secure the necessary local authority consents, plus the works and materials themselves. The costs involved were substantial, and they highlight the ever-increasing labour and material costs that have become a common feature in recent years, when resolving claims under lack of local authority consent policies. This is even more apparent for listed buildings where specialist and traditional building materials are required to comply with the stringent rules.

As this claim demonstrates, local authorities can take enforcement action many years after unauthorised works to a listed building have been completed, in this case more than two decades later! From an insurance perspective, it’s not a scenario that improves over time, as there is no time limitation or legal defence for any enforcement action that is taken. Innocent homeowners can face unexpected enforcement action years after their purchase, sometimes initiated by neighbours or the public. And if action is taken, it often comes with a list of complicated and expensive demands from planning officers to bring works up to the required standard necessary to ensure listed buildings consent is granted. In a worst-case scenario, despite putting an application together, the local authority can still refuse consent and insist on the works, causing significant disruption. Whatever situation we’re faced with, our claims team work alongside our policyholders to guide them through the process, and do everything we can to ensure consent is obtained and the claim is resolved as quickly and thoroughly as possible.