Application for a Certificate of Lawful Development for a 30 year old domestic dwelling: Refused by Ealing Council

[loquat1]

Hey Guys,

I hope someone here can help a poor maiden in distress. She is distraught over the rejection of her application. It was rejected out of the blue on the grounds that: "On the balance of probability, the building was not continuously occupied for a period of four years", even though she provided ample evidence of its occupation. And the Planning Dept. made absolutely no attempt to obtain further evidence of occupation (if it was lacking in any way) before rejecting her application.

The Planning Dept. have advised her to submit a new application, which she cannot afford. She wants to appeal what she feels is an unreasonable and flawed rejection, made by an officer who was about to leave the dept. and was probably under some pressure to clear her case load before her departure.

Is there anybody here who can advise her on the appeals process and possible grounds for appeal that could get the decision reversed, etc? Or if not, recommend a forum where she can get such advice?

Many thanks.

 

[^woody^]

A new application for the same thing cannot be submitted. Why would the council advise that? Is there something missing from the information in the OP?

The council is not obligated to search for evidence. They assess the application based solely on the evidence provided by the applicant.

You would appeal to the planning inspectorate citing the reasons why you think the "proof" provided is valid and the application was wrongly refused. You can't submit anything new.

Why, after 30 years is a CLD required when the works are now time barred from enforcement (unless there is previous history)?

 

[loquat1]

Thanks for the reply woody, and apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I had to get more background from the young lady in question before I could reply.

A new application for the same thing cannot be submitted. Why would the council advise that?

I assume coz:
1. They need the dosh, and/or
2. The case officer in question is a complete incompetent.

I have informed the lady that she doesn't need to reapply.

Is there something missing from the information in the OP?

Most likely, but read on. The missing info might be further down.

The council is not obligated to search for evidence. They assess the application based solely on the evidence provided by the applicant.

Understood, but as far as the applicant was concerned, all the evidence required by the council was provided, and I believe the application was made under the guidance of her architect.

You would appeal to the planning inspectorate citing the reasons why you think the "proof" provided is valid and the application was wrongly refused. You can't submit anything new.

I believe she is in the process of doing exactly that.

Why, after 30 years is a CLD required when the works are now time barred from enforcement (unless there is previous history)?

The original build didn't have planning, and the applicant wants to 'legalise' her property so that she can apply for planning permission to extend her property at some point in the future.

Which begs another question. She wants to add a single storey roof extension that covers the entire plan of her studio flat. Can she do that under permitted development, and thus obviate the need for planning? And if she can do that under PD, then presumably she doesn't even need to appeal a bad decision, right?

Any advice would be much appreciated. For any future responses, I'll get her to take over this thread. She knows much more about this than I do, for obvious reasons.

 

[JohnD]

The sex and age of the applicant are irrelevant

 

[loquat1]

And here was me thinking they would sway it in her favour. Drats.

 

[blup]

Hey Guys,

I hope someone here can help a poor maiden in distress. She is distraught over the rejection of her application. It was rejected out of the blue on the grounds that: "On the balance of probability, the building was not continuously occupied for a period of four years", even though she provided ample evidence of its occupation. And the Planning Dept. made absolutely no attempt to obtain further evidence of occupation (if it was lacking in any way) before rejecting her application.

The Planning Dept. have advised her to submit a new application, which she cannot afford. She wants to appeal what she feels is an unreasonable and flawed rejection, made by an officer who was about to leave the dept. and was probably under some pressure to clear her case load before her departure.

Is there anybody here who can advise her on the appeals process and possible grounds for appeal that could get the decision reversed, etc? Or if not, recommend a forum where she can get such advice?

Many thanks.

What is the ample evidence, and what if any gaps in occupation were there?

 

[^woody^]

The original build didn't have planning, and the applicant wants to 'legalise' her property so that she can apply for planning permission to extend her property at some point in the future.

That's bad advice of she was advised, and it's a complete waste of time and unnecessary in terms of any future development plans. On the strength of that alone I'd question why she wants to go through the stress and costs of seeking the CLD.

As for future works under PD, she'll need to check if PD rights exist, and if they do just work to the criteria. The unauthorised extension will just be classed as a non original extension for PD purposes.

 

[loquat1]

I had a horrible feeling that might be the case. So basically, she's just made a rod for her own back. All that time, stress and £££ for absolutely nothing.

So just to be clear, if her xtension is outside of the criteria for PD, then her lack of a CLD will have zero implications for whether or not she obtains planning permission for the xtension. Is that right?

At this point, I'll be passing the thread over to her to continue - if she needs any further info or clarification. Meantime, thx for your help. I'm sure she'll be relieved and grateful for your guidance through what has been a nightmare for her to date.

 

[^woody^]

So just to be clear, if her xtension is outside of the criteria for PD, then her lack of a CLD will have zero implications for whether or not she obtains planning permission for the xtension. Is that right?

The existing unauthorised work is just taken as part of the existing building in context of any new planning applications or PD works.

ie any future works are assessed on their own merits or use up any remaining PD quota.

 

[blup]

So just to be clear, if her xtension is outside of the criteria for PD, then her lack of a CLD will have zero implications for whether or not she obtains planning permission for the xtension. Is that right?

She will have zero chance of pp if they have refused the ldc because there is no pp for the house, so it makes sense to appeal the ldc and put the matter beyond doubt. If it’s immune from enforcement under the 4 year rule it should be a breeze, plus in certain circumstances you can get costs if the lpa have behaved unreasonably which seems to be one case here.

 

[johnny2007]

Why would anyone regularise something built 30 years ago?
I don't know any council in London or Surrey that enforce anything past 6 years.

 

[blup]

Why would anyone regularise something built 30 years ago?
I don't know any council in London or Surrey that enforce anything past 6 years.

Because an ldc gives certainty to lenders and buyers, it effectively has the status of a planning permission.

 

[johnny2007]

Because an ldc gives certainty to lenders and buyers, it effectively has the status of a planning permission.

The lender won't care about a 30 year old extension and buyer, when well advised will welcome the extra space.
There's also indemnity insurance for such things.

 

[blup]

The lender won't care about a 30 year old extension and buyer, when well advised will welcome the extra space.

If the lender is happy its obviously not a problem

There's also indemnity insurance for such things.

Only if there is a breach of planning control, if its immune from enforcement there is nothing to indemnify.

 

[Old Salt]

…and if the Council already know because they have refused a LDC then indemnity insurance cannot be provided.