Martin Goodall’s Planning Law Blog

Martin Goodall’s Planning Law Blog

Off By

The Council received both prior authorization applications on 23 October, as acknowledged on the web-site. November the Council requested revised site plans showing the car parking spaces On 4, and we were holding provided, November after which the Council stated that the applications were accepted as valid on 5. The council also fell into error regarding their consultations. The LPA raised two other issues on appeal. The two begin these was whether the building was used within Use Class B1(a) on 29 May 2013, or if it was not used on that date, when it was last in use before that day. The other issue elevated by the LPA related to move and highways impacts.

Having got it so comprehensively incorrect, the Council can hardly have been amazed a full prize of costs was made against them, although they do their best to resist the costs program. The appellant experienced sent an e-mail to the Council on 30 December 2014 stating their view that the 56-day period had elapsed, and by return e-mail the Council disagreed with this view, that day issuing the refusal notice. The Council did not agree that the premises were in B1(a) use on 29 May 2013 or when last used.

There were several options open to the appellant after the expiry of what they viewed as the 56-day period, or following the receipt of the refusal notice. First, they could accept the problem as mentioned by the Council and make a planning program for the suggested development instead. Secondly, they could carry out the development on the basis of their view that the 56 days had elapsed, such that it was lawful to just do it with both developments now.

Thirdly, they could fill out an application for a lawful development certificate for the suggested development, on the basis that the development requested experienced become lawful because of the Council failing to respond within the 56-day statutory period. Finally, they could lodge an appeal against the Council’s purported refusal of prior authorization (and also against its failing to determine the program with the 56-day period). Obviously, the planning software was not an authentic option and may have been dismissed, quite from the trouble and delay that could have been included apart.

  • He acquired a fleet of Great Lakes freighters to bring ore from his Lake Superior mines,
  • Customizable profile tabs
  • Where is the info asset located
  • Business administration is boring
  • Description of items for which capitalization money were used

The appellant got in truth made continuing tries to avoid the cost and hold off of appeal. This started with the e-mail of 30 December, the response to which was the Council’s assertion that the 56 days was still running accompanied by the refusal notice. On 24 March 2015 the appellant contacted the Council to again to provide them the opportunity to rectify what was seen as one, but the Council refused.

The first appeal was posted on 3 May 2015 and the charm in respect of the next development appears to have followed a couple of months later. It really is unclear why this happened, but possibly in light of the Council continuing to contest the first charm. Around the substantive grounds, there was too little evidence to back counter-claims on the B1(a) use, in the true face of the statutory declaration.