Appeal Decision 13 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

The following appeal summary has been written by Steve Speed, and is available on his website www.planningjungle.com

28 July 2009 – 66 Marlborough Avenue, Cheadle Hulme, Cheshire SK8 7AW  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/C4235/X/09/2102683 

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council Reference: DC/040528 

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

·       The application, which was for works to the roof including the installation of a balustrade, was received by the Council before 01/10/2008 (on 29/09/2008), it was assumed in the appeal that works had not yet begun by that date, and the Council refused the application after 01/10/2008 on the basis that the proposals would not comply with the amended GPDO.  The Council argued that to have granted an LDC for what would effectively have been a 1 day period (which had passed) would not have made sense, and that they had therefore taken a practical approach.

The Inspector pointed out that, by strict adherence to procedure, the Council could have issued an LDC stating that, on the date of the application, the works would have been lawful, but then drawn attention to the effect of changes to the General Permitted Development Order 1995, thereby pointing out that if the development had not started before 1 October 2008 then it would not be lawful.  However, the Inspector stated that he could understand why the Council adopted their position, and concluded that it was reasonable for the LPA to assess the application on the basis of the amended GPDO, despite the fact that it was received before 01/10/2008. 

Main Conclusion: 

·      Where an application was received before 01/10/2008, yet determined on or after 01/10/2008 (and the proposed works had not been begun by that date) it was reasonable for the LPA to determine the application on the basis of the amended GPDO.  However, the Inspector also suggests that the Council could have instead issued an LDC whilst pointing out that if the development had not started before 1 October 2008 then it would not be lawful.   (Note: The conclusion that the Council’s approach was ‘reasonable’ would appear to contradict the appeal decision dated 8 April 2009 for 56-58 Ridge Road). 

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/C4235/X/09/2102683&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.1594854