Property Law Library
Boundaries and adverse possession
Deeds, plans and boundary features
Presumptions
Boundary agreements
Adverse possession
Adverse possession and Pye v Graham
Land Registration Act 2002
Consent
Acknowledgement of title
Estoppel
Highways
Human rights
Miscellaneous
Multiple parcels
Criminal offence
Experts
Party walls
Tidal waters
T-marks
Trees and hedges
Business lease renewal
Telecommunications Code
Does the Act apply?
Contracting out
Surrender
Section 25 notices
Counternotice
Section 26 requests
Ground (b)
Ground (c)
Ground (f)
Ground (g)
Rent
New lease terms
Easements on renewal
Compensation
Procedure
Insolvency of landlord
Registration of claim
Reform of Part II
Commonhold
Co-ownership and estoppel
Co-ownership disputes - Stack v Dowden
Partnership
Equitable accounting
Pallant v Morgan
Proprietary estoppel
Yeomans Row v Cobbe
Yeomans and s2 of 1989 Act
Assurance and reliance - Thorner
Laches and estoppel
Satisfying the equity
Tax
Trusts of Land etc Act 1996
Easements
Abandonment
Commons and rights of way
Construing rights of way
Extinguisment
Gardens
Extent of grant
Illegality
Implied and s62
Increasing the burden
Parking
Prescription
Profits a prendre
Repair to right of way
Registration of easements
Right to light
Excluding the right
Injunction?
Damages
Substantial interference
Landlord and tenant (general)
Assignment
Break clauses
Notices
Material compliance and breaches
Miscellaneous
Repayment of rent
Yielding up
Chattels and fixtures
Business rates
Consents
Tenant's request
Landlord's response
Reasonable refusal
Conditions
Alterations
Underletting
Construction of lease terms
Dilapidations
Breach
Landlord's obligation
Schedules and notices
Standard of repair
Damages and s18 cap
Miscellaneous
Discrimination
Disclaimer
Distress
Estoppel
Forfeiture
Rent claims
Other cases
Section 146 notices
Waiver
Registration gap
Court procedure
Relief
Unlawful forfeiture
Law reform
Goods left on the premises
Indemnity
Insolvency
L & T (Covenants) Act 1995
Licences
Management regulations
Merger
Nuisance
Notices - service
Pre-emption clause
Rent
Rent review
Construction
Presumption of reality
Time of essence
Rent review notices
Arbitration
Rent suspension
Restraint of trade
Service charges and insurance (general)
Set-off
Subletting, sharing possession or occupation
Surrender by operation of law
Surrender and re-grant
Tenancy at will
Uncertain term
Unlawful eviction
Long leases
Acquisition orders
Enfranchisement
House?
Forms
Qualifications
Notices
Miscellaneous
Enfranchisement proceedings
Terms of the transfer
Valuation (deferment rates and hope value)
Valuation (other points)
Forfeiture restrictions
Ground rent notices
Management
Right to manage
Manager under 1987 Act
Part 1 of the 1954 Act
Right of first refusal
Developers beware
Service and administration charges and insurance
Construction of the lease
Statutory control - reasonableness
Service charge demands
Administration charges
Summary of leaseholder's rights
Insurance
Managing agents
Reserve funds
The 18-month rule
Consultation of tenants
Compromise of service charge dispute
Legal costs
Transfer to First-tier Tribunal
Variation of lease terms
Mobile homes and caravans
Mortgages
Negligent valuation
Bank all monies charge
Charging orders
Civil Recovery Order
Consumer Credit Act 1974
Consumer Credit Act 2006
Clog on the equity of redemeption
Facility agreement
Forgery
Interest
Limitation and shortfall
Marshalling
Misrepresentation and affirmation
Money claim
Mortgage indemnity policies
Enforcement
Mortgage possession
Costs
Mortgage arrears protocol
Time to sell
Miscellaneous
Enforcement
Negligent financial advice
Priorities
Proving the loan
Regulation
Sale
Effect of sale on possession
Duties on sale
Orders for sale
Sale and leaseback
Solicitor's breach of trust and negligence
Subrogation
Terms
Tenants of mortgagees
Undue influence
Unfair contract terms
Nuisance and trespass
Abating the nuisance
Damages - account of profits
Damages - human rights
Defects in neighbouring property
Defences
Fire
Noise
Self-help
Trees
Trespass
Water
Planning
Appeals procedure
Change of use
Children
Compensation
Compulsory purchase
Conditions
Development
Definition
Development plans
Design and access statements
General permitted development
Lawful development certificates
Environmental
Enforcement
Enforcement notices
Deceit
Deemed permission
Estoppel
User for 4 or 10 years
Stop notices
Judicial review
Localism
Material considerations
Permission
Policy consultation
National policy
Property litigation and ADR
Automatic stay
Business leases
Compromise
Costs
Damages in lieu of injunction
Declaration
Expert evidence
Harassment by proceedings
Property Chamber
Land Registry Adjudicator
Residential Property Tribunal
Mediation
Party wall awards
Tomlin orders
Unilateral notices
Property transactions
Commercial lease code
Contaminated land
Contract
Deeds
Defective Premises Act
Deposits
Electronic Communications Code
EPCs in Commercial Properties
Execution
Failure to complete
Gifts of land
Guarantees and indemnities
Land registration
Local government
Misrepresentation and answers to enquiries
Money laundering
Notice to complete
Options
Overage
Planning obligations
Perpetuities
Positive covenants
Rectification
Rent charges
Searches and enquiries
Solicitors
Title
Undertakings
Unjust enrichment
Vendor's lien
Writing - s2 of 1989 Act
Possession claims
Protection from Eviction Act
Trespassers
Bankruptcy
Disability discrimination defences
Human Rights Act defences
Weaver
Procedure
Orders for possession
Costs
Warrants
Suspending warrants
Setting aside
Public access to land
Commons
Right to roam
Town and village greens
The main cases
Cancellation of registration
Inhabitants of locality
User as of right
Residential tenancies
Anti-social behaviour
Asbo or injunction
Family Intervention Tenancies
Injunctions under 1996 Act
Possession orders
Committal
Assured tenancies
Assured shortholds
Section 20 Notices
Section 21 Notices
Boats
Housing disrepair claims
Liability
Damages for disrepair
Costs in disrepair cases
Homeless persons
Human rights
Introductory tenancies
Licences - Bruton Tenancies
Neighbouring Noises
Notice to quit
Proceeds of crime
Reform
Rent Act 1977
Rent books
Right to buy
Secure tenancies
Tenancy deposit
Tenant's notice to quit
Tolerated trespassers
Unfair contract terms
Unlawful eviction
Restrictive covenants
Benefit of covenants
Burden
Competition
Consent to development
Enforcing covenants
Interpretation - breach
Modification and discharge
Overage
Variation under s610 of 1985 Act
Monthly Update
Boundaries and adverse possession.
Business lease renewal.
Co-ownership and estoppel.
Easements.
Landlord and tenant (general).
Long leases.
Mobile homes.
Mortgages.
Nuisance and trespass.
Planning.
Property litigation and ADR.
Property transactions.
Public access to land.
Residential tenancies.
Restrictive covenants.
Free summaries
Property Mediation
Property Mediators
Alan Langleben
Beverly-Ann Rogers
David Blackburn
David Small
Gary Webber
Jacky Lewis
Jacqui Joyce
Jeremy Manuel
Jonathan Arkush
John de Waal
Louisa Weinstein
Marc Beaumont
Mark Hacking
Mark Summerfield
Martin Banham-Hall
Martyn Liberson
Paul Randolph
Paul Newman
Sara Benbow
Simon Williams
Stephen Shaw
Stephanie Tozer
Timothy Russ
Tactics and strategy at mediation
Training
Conferences and courses
In-house courses
Co-ownership
Drafting
Covenants
Dilapidation claims
Easements
Housing disrepair.
Insolvency
Managing Leases
Misrepresentation and answers to enquiries
Mixed Use Properties
Mortgages
Overage
Remedies in property disputes
Residential leases
Restrictive covenants
Sale Contracts
Section 2 of the 1989 Act
Twenty Topical Traps
Unreasonable refusal to consent
Information
Contact
Barristers
Solicitors
Experts
Books
Boundaries and party walls.
Commonhold.
Commercial leases.
Commons and village greens.
Conveyancing and property development.
Disrepair.
Easements.
Environment.
Farms
Housing
Long leases.
Mediation.
Mortgage.
Nuisance.
Residential tenancies.
Restrictive covenants.
Service charges.
SDLT and VAT
Links
Cases and articles
Civil procedure
Contaminated land
Housing forms
Land Registration
Law reform
Neighbour and boundary disputes
Organisations
Professional associations
Publishers on-line
Residential landlord and tenant
Scotland
Statutes and SI's
Join HERE
Members Login
Download update
My Details
My Invoices
My Subscriptions
My CPD
Instructions
Logout
Home Page
>
Property Law Library
>
Planning
>
Development
>
Lawful development certificates
Home Page
Contact
Editorial Team
Section Contents
Definition
Development plans
Design and access statements
General permitted development
Lawful development certificates
Print Version
Current page
Lawful development certificates
Amount of detail required in certificate
Hillingdon London Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government and Autodex Ltd
[2008] EWHC 198 (Admin)
Summary
This case is instructive in that is considers the level of detail necessary when issuing a certificate of lawful use and also addresses the proper interpretation of
s57(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
.
Facts
The local authority applied to quash a decision of the secretary of state allowing the appeal of the second respondent against the refusal of the local authority to issue a certificate of lawful use or development for the use of land and buildings on a site for storage and ancillary purposes. The land related to a former farm that had been vacant and derelict for many years.
The local authority contended that the inspector had not described the lawful use of the site in sufficient detail and that she had misunderstood the effect of s57 (4) of the 1990 Act The inspector on behalf of the secretary of state had granted a certificate of lawful use or development for use of land and buildings on the site for storage in that while such a use was lawful for the purposes of the 1990 Act it could not be resumed as the provisions relating to lawful development certificates were contained in Part VII of the Act and not Part III
Held
The court rejected these submissions and held that the appropriate level of detail would vary from case to case and there was no legal requirement to specify the quantity of any particular item that could lawfully be stored on the site nor was there any need to define what was meant by ancillary purposes as this was a concept well understood in planning law.
The court also held that the effect of
s191(2) of the 1990 Act
had to be considered by adopting a purposive approach. By doing so it was clear that the effect was to make certain uses lawful for the entirety of the Act. Accordingly, the inspector had not made any error of law.
Comment
This case deals with two important issues relating to certificates of lawfulness. While the statutory provisions of the 1990 Act need to be complied with, the question of how much detail is necessary in a certificate will be a matter for the decision maker. Furthermore, a distinction was drawn between the earlier provisions of the preceding Acts and the 1990 Act in respect of the question of reversion to a lawful use. The new regime when considered purposively did permit reversion to a lawful use.
Enforcement action
Seasonal occupancy condition
North Devon District Council v First Secretary of State and Stokes
[2004] EWHC 578 (Admin)
Facts
The owner of a holiday bungalow applied unsuccessfully to the council for an LDC for permanent residential use of the bungalow. Planning permission for its construction contained a condition restricting occupation to the period of 15 March to 15 November in each year but the owner contended that he had occupied the bungalow continuously since 1992 in breach of this condition. On appeal, the inspector granted the LDC. The council applied to quash the inspectors decision on the basis that the condition had not been breached continuously for more than ten years as required by
section 171B(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
. The occupation of the bungalow between 15 March and 15 November in each year complied with the condition.
Decision
Sullivan J dismissed the claim. There was nothing in section 171B to prevent the beach of a seasonal occupancy condition from becoming immune from enforcement action after ten years. The council could at any time during that period have taken enforcement action, even during the summer months when occupancy was not in breach of the condition. Now it was too late to do so.
Comment
In
Thurrock Borough Council v Secretary of State
[2002] 2 PLR 43 the CA held that enforcement action could be commenced within the relevant limitation period even if at the moment of issue of the enforcement notice the activity objected to was not actually going on, because the land could still properly be described as being used for the objectionable activity.
Grant of planning permission
No release from obligations in s106 agreement
R (on the application of Peel Land and Property Investments Plc) v Hyndburn BC
[2012] EWHC 2959
Summary
The effect of obtaining planning permissions was not to release the owner of a retail park from obligations in a s106 agreement restricting the type of goods that could be sold. Certificates of lawful development had been rightly refused.
Facts
The claimant (C) was the owner of a retail park. The retail park contained a number of retail units which were subject to planning obligations restricting the type of goods that could be sold. However, each section 106 agreement contained a proviso that:
“Nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit or limit the right to develop any part of the Site in accordance with any planning permission… granted (whether or not on appeal) after the date of this Agreement.”
C applied for and obtained a series of minor planning permissions to alter and subdivide the retail units. C then applied for a certificate of lawful development to the effect that as a result of the later planning permissions, the provisos in the section 106 agreements were triggered so that the section 106 restrictions on the types of goods sold no longer applied. The council refused the certificates, and C appealed to an Inspector. However, before the hearing, C issued this claim judicially reviewing the Council’s refusal.
Decision
The High court refused the application and held that the Council were entitled to refuse to grant certificates of lawful development to allow unrestricted A1 retail use at the retail park. The court also gave leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
C argued that:
Each of the later permissions permitted both internal and external works which led to the creation of one or more new retail units;
By virtue of
section 75(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
, those units could be used for unrestricted A1 retail purposes, being the use for which they were designed; and
The development permitted by the later permissions amounted to a new chapter in the planning history of the units, which also had the effect of engaging the proviso.
The court dismissed C’s claim and held that the planning permissions granted did not involve the creation of new retail units or a new planning chapter, or a material change of use and thus did not have the effect of releasing C from obligations restricting the type of goods that could be sold in certain units.
The court also accepted that s75 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was not engaged in circumstances where the application for planning permission did not involve any material change of use and therefore s75 could not assist C because the use of the retail units before and after the alterations remained the same. Section 75(3) required an implicit or explicit request for a change of use. That was absent in the instant case.
Time Limits
Field v First Secretary of State
[2004] EWHC 147 (Admin)
Facts
C unsuccessfully applied to the local planning authority for a lawful development certificate in the following circumstances. In 1967, outline planning permission had been granted in respect of the claimants land for the demolition of existing cottages and the construction of two new bungalows. As a result of later provisions contained in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the outline planning permission was deemed to be subject to a condition requiring the development to begin within a period of five years commencing on 1 April 1969. The cottages had been demolished in 1969 or 1970 but nothing further had been done to implement the planning permission.
C contended that the works of demolition amounted to a specified operation within the meaning of s43 of the 1971 Act, so marking the beginning of the development. Therefore, the planning permission remained valid. On appeal, the inspector rejected that argument on the basis that the works had to include a constructive element to qualify as a specified operation. The claimant challenged that decision n the High Court.
Decision
Sullivan J allowed the claim. It was clear from the later decision in
Cambridge City Council v Secretary of State for the Environment
[1992] 3 PLR 4 that the works of demolition constituted development for the purposes of the statute. Carrying out a specified operation within the meaning of s43 of the 1971 Act was not the only way in which, for the purposes of the time limit, the development could be begun. Some developments would not include any specified operations and these had to be capable of being begun for the purposes of time limits.
Comment
The relevant statutory provision now is s56 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which refers to material operation rather than specified operation and includes within the definition of the former any work of demolition of a building. This decision remains relevant, however, in that it supports the proposition that for the purposes of time limits, there may be circumstances in which development could be regarded as having been begun other than by means of a material operation.
Back to top
If you have found this page useful, you may be interested in the following:
Options
Free Summaries
£nil
Full Membership
From £207 + VAT (1 year)