Lawful Development and Previously Developed Land

[TonyAtTheCroft]

My LA (Calderdale) has turned down my application to rebuild our dwelling in the Green Belt. I applied under paragraph 154(g) of the new NPPF (December 2024) which creates an exception in the green belt if the land is "Previously Developed Land" (PDL).

They are saying that the land is not PDL under the current definition because the existing development was legalised by a Certificate of Lawful Development (CLD) granted to us in 2023.

The definition of PDL in the new NPPF starts: "Land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it..."

The words "...has been lawfully developed..." were added in for the latest NPPF so were not there prior to December 2024.

So they are using this amendment to claim that a Certificate of Lawful Development does not mean that the land has been Lawfully Developed!! Sounds crazy to me.

My view is that there is no difference between development made lawful through planning permission, and development made lawful via CLD. I believe that these extra words have only been added to the definition of PDL in order to exclude developments that are not lawful in any respect, that is, no PP or CLD.

I think they are just clutching at straws in order to refuse my development.

What do you guys think?

 

[thomp1983]

You'll need to go back to them and point out that the amendment they are using was not in place at the time of your application so therefore has no relevance.

 

[nickjb]

Surely a Certificate of Lawful Development certifies that the development was lawful. It doesn't make the development lawful, it's confirmation that it is lawful.

 

[Mottie]

You'll need to go back to them and point out that the amendment they are using was not in place at the time of your application so therefore has no relevance.

Won’t it be in place and apply to a new build though?

 

[thomp1983]

Shouldn't imagine so, it should be the same as a building regs app in that the rules apply that were in place at the time of application not whatevers introduced afterwards is retrospective

 

[Notch7]

I think they are just clutching at straws in order to refuse my development.

What do you guys think?

it sounds like typical local authority attitude

they work on the principle that refusal means they cant be caught out later on....I see it as a form of job protection: if you are a planning officer then if you refuse something you cant be held accountable later on

its exactly why this country cant grow.

Labour are actually correct: supply side reforms are needed to grow the economy

 

[TonyAtTheCroft]

You'll need to go back to them and point out that the amendment they are using was not in place at the time of your application so therefore has no relevance.

Only problem with that is that I'm relying on the changes in the new NPPF with regard to Para 154(g) to build a larger house than I could have done under the old framework.

 

[TonyAtTheCroft]

Surely a Certificate of Lawful Development certifies that the development was lawful. It doesn't make the development lawful, it's confirmation that it is lawful.

Yes, I believe that is true. The land becomes "lawfully developed" after the passage of 10 years, the certificate just confirms that the LA accept the evidence of that passage of time. But the big question is - is my land now "Land which has been lawfully developed" - and therefore can be defined as PDL according to the NPPF.

 

[blup]

My LA (Calderdale) has turned down my application to rebuild our dwelling in the Green Belt. I applied under paragraph 154(g) of the new NPPF (December 2024) which creates an exception in the green belt if the land is "Previously Developed Land" (PDL).

They are saying that the land is not PDL under the current definition because the existing development was legalised by a Certificate of Lawful Development (CLD) granted to us in 2023.

The definition of PDL in the new NPPF starts: "Land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it..."

The words "...has been lawfully developed..." were added in for the latest NPPF so were not there prior to December 2024.

So they are using this amendment to claim that a Certificate of Lawful Development does not mean that the land has been Lawfully Developed!! Sounds crazy to me.

My view is that there is no difference between development made lawful through planning permission, and development made lawful via CLD. I believe that these extra words have only been added to the definition of PDL in order to exclude developments that are not lawful in any respect, that is, no PP or CLD.

I think they are just clutching at straws in order to refuse my development.

What do you guys think?

A CoLD is equivalent to a planning permission. They cant make that distinction, so you will need to persuade them by appealing the refusal. Or persuading them otherwise

 

[thomp1983]

Only problem with that is that I'm relying on the changes in the new NPPF with regard to Para 154(g) to build a larger house than I could have done under the old framework.

I'm not sure you can have it both ways, you either want to use the older regs to prove your pdl or the new rules that say your not pdl but if you were would allow you something bigger and it's taking the **** a bit expecting to have it both ways

 

[TonyAtTheCroft]

I'm not sure you can have it both ways, you either want to use the older regs to prove your pdl or the new rules that say your not pdl but if you were would allow you something bigger and it's taking the **** a bit expecting to have it both ways

Not sure I said I was trying to do that. In reality you don't have the choice, whatever NPPF is in force when the determination is made is the one you are stuck with! I am happy with the new Para 154(g) but I need to fully understand the meaning of the new definition of PDL before thinking about appealing the decision.

 

[thomp1983]

It shouldn't be the policy in place at the time of determination but at the time of application.

You apply based on those criteria, if the criteria changes before determination then your application can't meet it as you didn't know about them.

 

[^woody^]

Get proper legal planning advice. That's a highly technical argument.