Appeal Decision 5 - Certificate of Lawful Development.

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

18 May 2009 – 9 Eastholme, Hayes, Middlesex, UB3 2HZ  

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/A5270/X/08/2091375 

London Borough of Hillingdon Reference: 56736/APP/2008/2639 

Summary of Case (appeal dismissed): 

·       The application, which was for a single storey rear extension, was received by the Council before 01/10/2008, 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 Inspector concluded that it was correct 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.  In reaching this conclusion, a key factor appears to have been that the proposed extension had not been begun before 01/10/2008.  The Inspector quoted section 194(2) of the TCPA 1990, and added the following emphasis: “the lawfulness of any use or operations for which a certificate is in force …shall be conclusively presumed unless there is a material change, before the use is instituted or the operations are begun, in any of the matters relevant to determining such lawfulness”.  The Inspector reasoned that a certificate could not be issued by the Council when they came to determine the application because what determined the lawfulness of the proposed development at the time of the application had materially changed. 

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 correct for the LPA to determine the application on the basis of the amended GPDO.  (Note: This would appear to contradict the appeal decision dated 8 April 2009 for 56-58 Ridge Road). 

Link to case on Planning Inspectorate website: