ask us a question on permitted development           Permitted Development England
How to build a home extension  without Planning Permission using your PD rights - Oct. 1st 2008



Home Page About Us FAQ Advertise on this site Disclaimer Privacy Contact Us Site Map

Appeal Decision 168 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

This appeal decision summary and assessment has been produced by Planning Jungle Limited.  For more information, please go to


December 2010 - Code a00168


Summary of Case (Inspector decided to take “no further action” with this appeal): 


The application was submitted under section 192 (proposed) on 08/12/2009 for various works which (according to the Council) had begun on 12/08/2010 and were completed on 04/01/2010. 


The Council’s reason for refusal was as follows: 


“The operations described in this application had begun on 12 August 2008 and completed on 4 January 2009 which is prior to the submission of this application for a Certificate of Lawfulness, and as such they could not be considered to constitute a proposed development. Given that an application in relation to a Certificate of Lawfulness (Proposed), there is no longer an appropriate scheme or proposal that can be considered. As such, the application would be contrary to the requirements of Section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990)”. 


The Inspector stated the following: 


“The application which is the subject of this appeal was made under Section 192(1)(b) of the Act, which applies to any operations proposed to be carried out. However, it is clear that, at the time the application was made, the development described above must have been substantially completed – the application date is less than 1 month prior to the Council’s Building Control record of a ‘Completion’ inspection on 4 January 2010, a period which includes the Christmas/New Year break. 


Section191 of the Act contains the means to ascertain the lawfulness of operations which have been carried out, as is alluded to in the Council’s formal decision. The fact that this decision contained a typographical error, referring to the development as having been completed on 4 January 2009 does not alter the essence of that decision. Neither can the fact that the S.192 application form includes a question “Has the proposal been started?” infer that that section of the Act is appropriate in the case of substantially completed development. 


In the light of my conclusions above, I shall take no further action on this appeal. It is always open to the appellant to submit a revised application to the Council under the appropriate section of the act, with whatever supporting evidence he wishes to put forward”. 


Main Conclusions: 


·       Where an application is submitted under section 192 (proposed), but at the time the application was made the development was substantially completed, then the applicant should resubmit the application under section 191 (existing).
[Relevant to: “Interaction between section 191 (existing) and section 192 (proposed)”].


Links to the “Appeal Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc): 


·       Appeal Decision Notice: 

·       Council’s Decision Notice: 






Download documents and diagrams of useful

Permitted Development information

permitted development documents download

 Appeal Decisions