Certificates of Lawfulness
If you want to be certain that the existing use of a building is lawful for planning purposes or that your proposal does not require planning permission, you can apply for a 'Lawful Development Certificate' (LDC).
It is not compulsory to have an LDC but there may be times when you need one to confirm that the use, operation or activity named in it is lawful for planning control purposes.
You can apply to your local council for an LDC via the Planning Portal online application service. The application must provide sufficient information for the council to decide the application or else it may be refused. You will have to pay a fee.
Often the issues involved in LDCs are complex and if you decide you need to apply for a certificate you might benefit by obtaining professional advice. Your LPA's planning officers can also help. They will tell you about the sort of information needed to support your application.
If your application is partly or wholly refused or is granted differently from what you asked for, or is not determined within the time limit of eight weeks, you can appeal. Appeals are made to the Planning Inspectorate. If you want to be certain that the existing use of a building is lawful for planning purposes or that your proposal does not require planning permission, you can apply for a 'Lawful Development Certificate' (LDC). It is not compulsory to have an LDC but there may be times when you need one to confirm that the use, operation or activity named in it is lawful for planning control purposes. You can apply to your local council for an LDC via the Planning Portal online application service. The application must provide sufficient information for the council to decide the application or else it may be refused. You will have to pay a fee.
Often the issues involved in LDCs are complex and if you decide you need to apply for a certificate you might benefit by obtaining professional advice. Your LPA's planning officers can also help. They will tell you about the sort of information needed to support your application.
If your application is partly or wholly refused or is granted differently from what you asked for, or is not determined within the time limit of eight weeks, you can appeal. Appeals are made to the Planning Inspectorate. Appeals procedure to the Secretary of State but you should be aware that appeals can take several months to be decided.
Case Study: 13 Moreton Street, Prees, Whitchurch, Shropshire
The proposal relates to the erection of a single storey, pitched roof outbuilding in the rear garden of 13 Moreton Street. The building would have a total height of 4m, up to 2.5m to the eaves; the length of the building would be 12m and the depth would be 7.5m. The building would have a similar though smaller footprint and be sited in approximately the same location as an existing outbuilding, described under 22/02500/CPL as a prefabricated workshop, which would be demolished.
It was necessary for Shropshire Council to consider if the proposal complies with the restrictions and limitations of Part 1, Class E of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) which relates to the provision within the curtilage of the dwelling house of—
(a) any building or enclosure, swimming or other pool required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such, or the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of such a building or enclosure; or
(b) a container used for domestic heating purposes for the storage of oil or liquid petroleum gas.
The proposed outbuilding would be a new structure and would not consist of the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of the existing outbuilding which would be demolished.
In the legal case Emin v Secretary of State for the Environment and Mid-Sussex DC (1989) 58 P&CR
416  GPL 909 case established that regard should be had not only to the use to which the Class E building would be put, but also to the nature and scale of that use in the context of whether it was a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house. The physical size of the building in comparison to the dwelling house might be part of that assessment but is not by itself conclusive.
To help the planners En-Plan and the owner identified the purpose and incidental quality of what is
proposed in relation to their enjoyment of the dwelling house and answer the question as to whether the proposed building is genuinely and reasonably required or necessary to accommodate the proposed use or activity and thus achieve that purpose. The incidental use cannot rest solely on the unrestrained whim of the appellant himself.
Shropshire County Council Planning Department accepted that a domestic garage would be capable of being a use incidental to the residential use of the main house. However, the total floorspace of the building would be approximately 96sqm, a significant scale; the main dwelling has a footprint of approximately 51sqm therefore a reasonable estimate of the total floor area of the two-storey house in the absence of floor plans for the dwelling would be around 102sqm.
The outbuilding would therefore be similar in floor area to the dwelling which it is proposed it would be incidental to. As stated above, however, though the physical size of the building in comparison to the dwelling house may be part of an assessment it is not by itself conclusive.
The building is required in connection with the applicant’s collection of private cars and hobby of competing in pro-amateur drifting competitions; the garage would allow for the storage and repair of these cars. A number of the cars are custom built and raced by the applicant. The applicant has provided several V5C Registration Documents which demonstrates that many of the cars are over 30 years old and has provided a valuation for his main track car. It is accepted that this collection of cars could not be
easily replaced and must be kept securely.
As a matter of principle, it does not seem unreasonable that the occupier of a dwelling house should seek to house his private collection of classic cars at their home, not only in terms of convenience but also in terms of security, and it is not a matter of being at the whim of an individual owner or occupier. It is accepted that the number of cars owned by the applicant that the size of the garage would be genuinely and reasonably required to accommodate the owner’s vehicles and to facilitate his hobby. Collecting and racing cars would involve the owner possessing many more examples of their subject of interest than might be found in a normal home. The relevant question in this case is whether this hobby would be ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling house and is reasonable in the circumstances. Despite the extensive collection of vehicles, and the paraphernalia likely to be required in connection with their
maintenance and restoration, it is considered that the hobby use is nevertheless subordinate to the main use of the property as a dwelling house. There is no suggestion that anyone other than the owner would use the workshop, or that a commercial enterprise is involved.
It is recognised that the large size of the building would look out of proportion with the modest outbuildings in the gardens of nearby dwellings though admittedly not in comparison to the existing building that it would replace. But that is not the test; it is whether it is reasonably required for an incidental activity. It is considered that the overall nature, scale and purpose of the proposed outbuilding is not unreasonable in the particular circumstances of the case and therefore on the balance of probabilities, the building would be reasonably required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the
dwelling house as such, and that the building would be permitted under Class E.
On the balance of probabilities, it is considered that the proposed scale of activities and size of the building would be genuinely and reasonably required or necessary to accommodate the proposed uses as incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such. The proposed development would, therefore, constitute permitted development by virtue of the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Town and Country Planning# (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended).
It is concluded that the proposed works would be deemed as ‘permitted development’
and formal planning permission would not be required.
Case Study: Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use and Development (CLEUD) under Section 192
Of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for ‘use of building for C3 (b) use by Charles Telford Housing limited” of 36 Withybrook, Woodside, Telford, TF7 5PY as C3 (b) unit.
En-Plan: Planning & Architecture have been instructed by Charles Telford Housing Limited, to submit an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use or Development (CLEUD) in order to confirm the current C3 (b) use is indeed lawful at 36 Withybrook, Woodside, Telford. TF7 5PY.
A Supporting Statement was produced to accompany the application for a Certificate of Existing Use or Development in order to attain a legal determination from the Local Planning Authority (Telford & Wrekin Council) on the existing use. The property is owned by Charles Telford Housing Limited who currently use it for 16/19-year-old care leavers as assisted living to help in the transition from care to independent living. An OFSTED registration application is in progress and OFSTED have requested confirmation from the council of the proposed use class. We are of the view that a CLEUD application is the best way to provide legal clarity for all parties involved.
36 Withybook is an end terraced 3 bedroomed house on a residential estate currently utilised as a C3 (b) use. Historically the property has acted as both C3 (a) and C4 use. The property is post war in design and construction and typifies the design style and tenure pattern in the locality. The property has 3 downstairs rooms, 2 of which are used by the resident support workers. The 3rd is a communal lounge. The support workers use these 2 rooms as office space and for support/guidance sessions if they need more privacy than is afforded by the communal lounge/dining room. Both of the carer’s rooms also have sofa beds etc in the rooms in order to provide 24-hour cover. The level of care/support is low as all residents are 16 to 19 years and are not physically or mentally impaired, but having come from the care system residents do need assistance in the transition to fully independent living.
Each of the care leavers (residents) has his/her own bedroom on the first floor which is a typical bedroom in a household with bed, warbrobe, etc. There are no cooking facilities or private bathroom facilities inside the bedrooms with all these facilities being communal. There is also a large lounge containing sofas, TV etc, for everyone to use (as in a normal household), and on the other side of that large room is a dining room table where communal eating is encouraged, in order to foster friendships and a culture of mutual support.
The property has been refurbished to a very high standard, with all rooms and hallways fitted with interlinked smoke detectors. All rooms are fitted with fire doors and there are fire break doors through the hallway which contain windows, and the communal kitchen is compartmentalised with 30 minutes fire protection.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ADVICE
THE 1990 TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT
Section 55 (1) of the 1990 Act states that:
“Subject to the following provisions of this sections, in this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, “development”, means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land”
Section 192(1) of the 1990 Act also states that:
(1) If any person wishes to ascertain whether
(a) any proposed use of buildings or other land; or
(b) any operations proposed to be carried out in, on, over or under
Land; would be lawful, he may make an application for the purpose to the local planning authority specifying the land and describing the use or operation in question
By virtue of section 192 (2), the local planning authority are required to issue such a certificate if the uses or operations described in the application would be lawful if
instituted at the time of the application. Subsection (3) of section 192 explains the
detail to be provided within the application.
USE CLASSES ORDER
Article 3(1) or the UCO provides that:
“Subject to the provisions of this Order, where a building or land is used for a purpose of any class specified in the Schedule, the use of that building or that land for any purpose of the same class shall not be taken to involve development of the land”.
Class C2. Residential institutions
Use for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care (other than a use within class C3 (dwelling houses)).
Use as a hospital or nursing home.
Use as a residential school, college or training centre.
C3 Dwellinghouses - This class is formed of three parts
C3(a) covers use by a single person or a family (a couple whether married or not, a person related to one another with members of the family of one of the couple to be treated as members of the family of the other), an employer and certain domestic employees (such as an au pair, nanny, nurse, governess, servant, chauffeur, gardener, secretary and personal assistant), a carer and the person receiving the care and a foster parent and foster child
C3(b) covers up to six people living together as a single household and receiving care e.g. supported housing schemes such as those for people with learning disabilities or mental health problems
C3(c) allows for groups of people (up to six) living together as a single household. This allows for those groupings that do not fall within the C4 HMO definition, but which fell within the previous C3 use class, to be provided for i.e. a small religious community may fall into this section as could a homeowner who is living with a lodger
C4 Houses in multiple occupation - Small shared houses occupied by between three and six unrelated individuals, as their only or main residence, who share basic amenities such as a kitchen or bathroom.
DOE CIRCULAR 10/97 – ENFORCING PLANNING CONTROL: LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS.
This Circular contains general advice as to how planning control should be enforced. Annex 8 is titled “Lawfulness and the Lawful Development Certificate” and contains a number of elements directly relevant to this application.
Paragraph 8.3 clarifies the meaning of Section 191(2) of the 1990 Act and explains that operations and uses are lawful if no enforcement action may be taken against them.
Paragraph 8.11 clarifies that the purpose of Lawful Development Certificate applications is to ascertain whether specific uses are lawful. Applicants must therefore describe precisely what is being applied for. Local planning authorities must assess whether, on the facts of the case and relevant planning law, the
specified matter is or would be lawful.
Paragraph 8.12 advises that the onus of proof is firmly on the applicant to show that the development is lawful. A Lawful Development Certificate can be refused if the onus of proof has not been discharged.
Paragraph 8.15 states that when considering the evidence associated with a Lawful Development Certificate application the relevant test is “the balance of probability”. Local authorities should not refuse certificates because the applicant has not discharged the stricter, criminal burden of proof (“beyond reasonable doubt”). It is not necessary for the applicant’s own evidence to be corroborated by independent evidence and the case of FW Gabbita V. SSE and Newham LBC 1985 JPL 630 is referred to where this principle was established. The paragraph goes on to say that if the local planning authority has no evidence of its own or third party evidence, the Lawful Development Certificate should be granted as long as the applicant’s evidence is sufficiently precise and unambiguous. The identity of the applicant or the planning merits of the operation or use are irrelevant to the purely legal issues involved.
Paragraph 8.16 identifies the need for Lawful Development Certificates to be drafted precisely to avoid problems in the future over what is or is not lawful on the site.
Paragraph 8.28 states that the terms of a Lawful Development Certificate should be precise, so that it is clear what has been approved.
CERTIFICATE JUSTIFICATION AND GROUNDS
A Certificate of Lawful Development is required to establish the proposed use off 36 Withybrook by Charles Telford Housing Limited. The lawful use of the area of land shown edged red on the site location plan is for ‘use of the building as supported living under Use Class C3 (b).”
We assert this is a dwelling within Class C and, as such, the change of use from Class C4 to C3 falls within PD. Class C3(b) not more than six residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents. Under Class C3(b) a dwelling house can include up to 6 residents living together as a household where care/support is provided.
The level of care is also important. This was considered in the High Court judgement of Crawley BC vs SSETR (2004). This ruled that even if there is full time care/support on site, this doesn’t mean the residents can’t form a single household. There is a significant amount of experience, appeals and case law which shows that supported living arrangements for up to 6 people can fall within C3b. There will be an element of care/support provided and the residents will have a connection to each other and function as a single household sharing facilities/activities. Also, where the number of residents is low then clearly it is much more like a family type environment. Supported semi-independent living is often required for young adults leaving care. This can be for young people aged 16+ to help them make the transition between full time care and independent living. They may receive a fair degree of support with daily living including 24-hour on-site staffing but they don’t receive a high level of care. These are distinguished from children’s care home because they do not provide “care” as defined by Ofsted, only support.
There are two Appeal decisions which support this view - 18 Hillcrest Road Stockport (Appeal Ref: APP/C4235/X/17/3170427) and 316 Westrow Drive, Barking (Appeal Ref:APP/Z5060/C/18/3214506).
In the first instance at 18 Hillcrest Road in Stockport the Inspector States the following:
“DCLG Definitions of General Housing Terms document ‘Definitions of general housing terms’ refers to Use Class C3(b). It notes that ‘one person or a group of people who have the accommodation as their only ormain residence and (for groups) either share at least one meal a day or share the living accommodation, that is, a living room or sitting room, shall be considered to comprise a single household.”
It is our view that the existing use of the property comes within this definition and is indeed a single household.
In the second instance of 316 Westrow Drive, Barking the Inspector stated the following:
“The appeal site is being used as a supported housing facility and the Council have placed looked after young people at the property in order to prepare them for independent living. I do not know from the representations before me the ages of the residents, but they are described as looked-after young people needing assistance to live independently and therefore, I have considered them as young adults and not children. In order to form a household for the purposes of Class C3(b) the persons who live together need not be related as family members. Whilst I note the description of services set out in the provider’s website and drawn to my attention by the Council, I must consider the actual use of the appeal site. I saw at my site visit that the layout of the property is largely what is expected of a family home with communal lounge, kitchen and garden areas.
The Inspectors description of the facilities offered at this site mirrors that of 36 Withybrook which was built as a family home and operates now as a single household offering support for “looked after young people.”
Reference should also be made to the flowing planning decision made by Wakefield Council to allow for a residential unit to function as a sheltered housing unit under a C3 (b) use class where ethe level of care is far higher than provided at 36 Withybrook due to the mental health problems of residents:
Use of property as a sheltered housing unit for people with mental health problems with a member of staff living on site as a carer (use Class C3b).
The Presbytery Station Lane Featherstone Pontefract Wakefield WF7 6EW
Ref. No: 14/02873/CPL | Received: Mon 05 Jan 2015 | Validated: Thu 08 Jan 2015 | Status: Granted
CONCLUSION AND DETERMINATION
In conclusion, a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use should be issued for the use of 36 Withybrook as a supported housing unit under use class C3 (b) as the proposal follows legal precedent for what constitutes a C3 (b) use, and the information presented in this application confirms that the proposal is neither a residential care home or hospital (use class C2). The residents will essentially live as one unit, which is in essence the whole reasoning behind the scheme as this model offers the most support to the residents as they move towards full independence.
The Borough of Telford and Wrekin hereby certifies that on 28/03/2023 the use and development set out in the First Schedule to this certificate in respect of the land specified in the Second Schedule attached to this certificate is lawful within the meaning of Section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), in accordance with the above plan(s) and for the following reason(s):
1. Based on evidence in the form of a previous appeal APP/Z5060/C/18/3214506, the Planning Inspectorate ruled that young adults can form a household. Whilst it was not specified the ages which constitute a young adult, it considered that this would be 16 – 18 years old. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, the application for a Section 191 Established Use for an existing use as a supported housing unit under Class C3(b) at 36 Withybrook should be granted with specific reference to 3 young adults aged between 16 and 19 residing within the property.
2. The material change of use is therefore immune for enforcement action under section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and is now considered lawful.
Case Study: 23/01092/PLUD Bethlem Royal Hospital Monks Orchard Road Beckenham BR3 3BX
Description of Development Installation of solar pv.(Lawful Development Certificate Proposed)
This application seeks a lawful development certificate for the proposed installation of solar photo-voltaic panels at the host property. The application has been submitted with a supporting statement. Further information was provided on 13th July 2023 with regards to the separation between the proposed panels and the external edge of the roof on which they would be installed, confirming a separation of 1.3m from the panels to the roof edge.
Site location and key constraints
The application site comprises the Bethlem Royal Hospital which incorporates extensive grounds along with a wide complex of buildings of a varied style, scale and siting. The host building is Monks Orchard House which is the westernmost building on the wider hospital site. The building is largely single storey, set around a central courtyard.
Bethlem Royal Hospital, also known simply as Bethlem or "Bedlam," is one of the oldest and most famous psychiatric hospitals in the world. It is located in London, England, and has a long history dating back to the 13th century. Bethlem Hospital is renowned for its treatment of mental health disorders and has gone through various transformations throughout its existence.
Historically, Bethlem Royal Hospital was founded in 1247 as a priory for the Order of the Star of Bethlehem, a Christian charitable organization. Over time, it evolved into a hospital specializing in the care and treatment of people with mental illnesses. By the 17th century, it became a public institution, taking in patients from across London and beyond.
The hospital earned a notorious reputation during the 18th and 19th centuries due to its harsh treatment of patients and the public's fascination with the mentally ill. It was often depicted as a place of squalor and cruelty, leading to the coining of the term "bedlam" to describe chaos or madness.
In the 20th century, significant reforms in mental health care led to changes in the hospital's practices and the relocation of its facilities. Bethlem Hospital became part of the National Health Service (NHS) in 1948, and in 1997 it moved to a modern site in Bromley, London, leaving behind its historic location in the city.
As mental health treatments advanced and society's understanding of mental illnesses improved, the hospital's approach to patient care shifted from confinement and restraint to more compassionate and therapeutic methods.
Today, Bethlem Royal Hospital, officially known as the Bethlem Royal Hospital of Mental Health, remains a leading psychiatric institution in the UK. It specializes in the treatment and research of various mental health conditions, providing both outpatient and inpatient services to individuals in need of psychiatric care. The hospital also plays a role in educating mental health professionals and contributing to the development of psychiatric knowledge and best practices.
Part 14 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended) relates to renewable energy. Class J relates to the installation of solar equipment on non-domestic premises and provides a number of criteria with which intended development of this nature must
The wider site has an extensive planning history associated with the hospital premises
and the numerous buildings located within the wider hospital site. There is no
immediately relevant recent planning history associated with the scope of this Lawful
Development Certificate proposal.
Class J relates to the installation of solar equipment on non-domestic premises and provides a number of criteria with which intended development of this nature must comply. Planning permission is required where the following criteria cannot be met:
(a)the solar PV equipment or solar thermal equipment would be installed on a pitched roof and would protrude more than 0.2 metres beyond the plane of the roof slope when measured from the perpendicular with the external surface of the roof slope;
(b)the solar PV equipment or solar thermal equipment would be installed on a flat roof, where the highest part of the solar PV equipment would be higher than 1 metre above the highest part of the roof (excluding any chimney);
(c)the solar PV equipment or solar thermal equipment would be installed within 1 metre of the external edge of that roof;
(d)in the case of a building on article 2(3) land, the solar PV equipment or solar thermal equipment would be installed on a roof slope which fronts a highway;
(e)the solar PV equipment or solar thermal equipment would be installed on a site designated as a scheduled monument; or
(f)the solar PV equipment or solar thermal equipment would be installed on a listed building or on a building within the curtilage of a listed building. With regards to J.1 (d-f) the building does not lie within the curtilage of a listed building, nor within a conservation area or on a site designated as a scheduled monument. With regards to J.1 (a) and J.1 (b) the submitted information indicates that the solar PV
panels would comply with these tolerances with regards to their projection relative to the host roof. With regards to J.1(c) the submitted information/drawing indicates that the panels would be separated from the edge of the roofs to which they would be installed by at least 1m and the separation was confirmed in writing by the agent on 13th July 2023.
Taking the above into account, assessing the scope of the revised proposals against the criteria listed within Class J, Part 14 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended) it is considered that the proposed installation of solar PV panels on the identified buildings would comprise permitted development.
Case Study: 23/01543/CP | Application for a Lawful Development Certificate for a Proposed Use or Development - Installation of new air source heat pumps, bin storage and electricity substation. | Blaise Primary And Nursery School Clavell Road Bristol BS10 7EJ.
The applicant site is Blaise Primary School, located in the residential suburb of Horfield and located
off Crow Lane with access into the school grounds off Clavell Road. The school itself is not in the conservation area but is located in close proximity to the Henbury Conservation Area and is within Flood Zone 2.
The application is for a Lawful Development Certificate for a Proposed Use or Development to check
whether the installation of new air source heat pumps, bin storage and electricity substation require
Relevant Planning Policy
National Planning Policy Framework – July 2021
Bristol Local Plan comprising Core Strategy (Adopted June 2011), Site Allocations and Development
Management Policies (Adopted July 2014) and (as appropriate) the Bristol Central Area Plan
(Adopted March 2015) and (as appropriate) the Old Market Quarter Neighbourhood Development
Plan 2016 and Lawrence Weston Neighbourhood Development Plan 2017 and the Hengrove and
Whitchurch Park Neighbourhood Development Plan 2019. In determining this application, the Local Planning Authority has had regard to all relevant policies of
the Bristol Local Plan and relevant guidance.
Do the proposals require planning permission?
The proposed works are for ASHP, a bin store and a substation. The works are reviewed under parts 12 (for the ASHP and bin store) and 15 (substation) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).
Part 12 of the General Permitted Development Order which deals with development by local authorities states that development is permitted if the folloiwng criteria are met:
A. The erection or construction and the maintenance, improvement or other alteration by a local authority or by an urban development corporation of—
(a)any small ancillary building, works or equipment on land belonging to or maintained by them required for the purposes of any function exercised by them on that land otherwise than as statutory undertakers;
(b)lamp standards, information kiosks, passenger shelters, public shelters and seats, telephone boxes, fire alarms, public drinking fountains, horse troughs, refuse bins or baskets, barriers for the control of people waiting to enter public service vehicles, electric vehicle charging points and any associated infrastructure, and similar structures or works required in connection with the operation of any public service administered by them.
Interpretation of Class A
A.1 For the purposes of Class A, “urban development corporation” has the same meaning as in Part 16 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (urban development)(54).
A.2 The reference in Class A to any small ancillary building, works or equipment is a reference to any ancillary building, works or equipment not exceeding 4 metres in height or 200 cubic metres in capacity.
The bin store and ASHP does not exceed 4 metres in height or exceed 200sqm. The substation complies with the relevant detailed criteria set out by that part.
With regard to part 15 which deals with Permitted development tights for statutory undertakers the
B. Development by statutory undertakers for the generation, transmission, distribution or supply of electricity for the purposes of their undertaking consisting of—
(a)the installation or replacement in, on, over or under land of an electric line and the construction of shafts and tunnels and the installation or replacement of feeder or service pillars or transforming or switching stations or chambers reasonably necessary in connection with an electric line;
(b)the installation or replacement of any electronic communications line which connects any part of an electric line to any electrical plant or building, and the installation or replacement of any support for any such line;
(c)the sinking of boreholes to ascertain the nature of the subsoil and the installation of any plant or machinery reasonably necessary in connection with such boreholes;
(d)the extension or alteration of buildings on operational land;
(e)the erection on operational land of the undertaking or a building solely for the protection of plant or machinery;
(f)any other development carried out in, on, over or under the operational land of the undertaking.
Based on the information supplied, the proposed development would comply with all the relevant terms of Schedule 2 part 12 and 15 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).
Based on the information supplied, the proposed development would comply with all the relevant terms of Schedule 2 part 12 and 15 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). The proposed development is therefore lawful and it is recommended that a lawful certificate is granted in this instance.
Case Study: Application for a Lawful Development Certificate for the existing use as a scaffolding yard/builders yard for the storage of building materials at Land At Long Road Terrington St Clement Norfolk - Reference 21/01375/LDE.
The main issue for consideration in the determination of this application is therefore whether, on the date the application was made (30 June 2021), the site had been used continuously for the purposes of scaffolding yard/builders yard for the storage of building materials for a period in excess of 10 years.
The onus of proof is firmly on the applicant. The NPPG advises on the relevant tests of submitted evidence for LDC applications. If the LPA has no evidence of its own or from others to contradict or otherwise make the applicant’s version of events less than probable there is not good reason to refuse an application, provided the applicant’s evidence alone is sufficiently precise and unambiguous to justify the grant of a certificate on the balance of probability.
A signed Statement by the current owner (applicant) dated 27/08/21 stated. “…I am the owner of the land which formed part of what was locally known as ‘Kelly’s Scaffolding Yard’. I bought the parcel of land in 2018 from Max Snell. I too stored building materials on the site and this suited my work as a roofer. The yard and building has been used as storage for building materials since I purchased the property and this has been the case until now and the use has never stopped.” A further statement was submitted from the local butcher in Terrington St Clement indicating knowledge of the applicant and intention for the proposed use for storage and business purposes; also “Kelly Scaffolding was used there for over a decade.” Undated correspondence from Kelly’s Scaffolding Ltd signed by the former owners stating yard was used for 13 years from 8/8/05 to 10/11/18 and was in continuous use for that purpose during that time period. A Supporting Statement was also submitted by the agent in response to questions raised by the case officer. Since August 2019 the site has been the subject of an investigation by our Enforcement Team and complaints regarding fly-tipping via Environmental Health. The applicant has also submitted a statement from his accountant Andrew Smith (of Salway and Wright) confirming acquisition of the site in November 2018 and use for roofer business since that date.
The evidence therefore suggests that between June 2011 to June 2021 the site was used for Use Class B8 purposes. The Local Planning Authority has no evidence to contradict or otherwise make the applicant’s version of events less than probable. There is however doubt as to the extent of the storage/use at the rear of the overall site. The rear-most parcel is obscured by tree canopies and vegetation in aerial imagery until May 2021 but photographs taken in 2019 show the entire site including this area cleared by the new owner/applicant. No further/substantial evidence has been submitted in response to this query.
Photographs taken by our Enforcement Team indicate that the site initially contained a portacabin in August 2019, but that was removed, and a new structure built when the site was re-visited in October 2019. The storage building presently on site is a completely new structure. For a structure/operational development to be immune from enforcement action it must be constructed in excess of 4 years. That element plus the rear parcel of land must therefore be excluded from the certificate and amended plans have been submitted to accord with this requirement.
On this basis it is considered that the lawful use has been established for the area clearly defined on the now submitted plans and a certificate should be granted. The roadside close boarded timber fence is in excess of 1m in height and has been erected since October 2019 and does not have the benefit of planning permission.
Both the storage building and roadside boundary fence will be pursued as a separate matter by our Enforcement Team.
With the Certifcate of Lawfulness now approved En-Pan could now focus on a new commercial building for the site and replace the dilapidated structure on site. En-Plan subsequnetly prepared a full planning application that was submitted to King's Lynn & West Norfolk Council.
The application is for erection of a brick built store to be used in association with the business carried out on the land. The site is subject of an enforcement case ref: 19/00435/UNAUTU for change of use of land to commercial yard and erection of storage building. A subsequent lawful development certificate ref: 21/01375/LDE was submitted and approved to regularise the use of the land. However, the building is under 4 years old and therefore remains unlawful. The proposed building in this application will replace the unlawful building currently on the site.
The principle of development was considered acceptable as the use of the land in association with the construction business is already established and the proposed building is relatively small in scale so would not significantly intensify the existing use. The proposal also involves formalising the access which is currently laid with crushed hardcore. It is considered the proposed building, due to its small scale and traditional materials, will maintain the rural character of the area in accordance with Policies CS06, CS08 and DM15 of the Development Plan. While specific details of materials have not been provided, it is considered these can be secured via condition to achieve a satisfactory appearance.
The proposed building is sufficiently far from residential neighbours to avoid any significant overbearing or overshadowing impacts. No windows are proposed so it is considered the building will not have any significant overlooking impact. The use of the site as a contractors yard is already established and it is considered the proposed building would not result in any significant additional increase in noise or disturbance over and above existing levels.
The permission was conditioned to ensure the existing access is approved to comply with Highways adopted standards. The third party comment states that other commercial applications have been refused on Long Road for highway safety reasons. The proposed application in this case does not introduce a new commercial use. As it only concerns the erection of a store on an existing commercial site, it is considered that there would not be any significant increase in traffic above what the site is currently capable of. On this basis, it is considered the development would not have any significant adverse impact on highway safety. Regarding contamination of land, it is considered due to the relatively low vulnerable use that it would not be sufficiently necessary to undertake a full characterisation and potential remediation of the land. However, in accordance with the advice from the Borough Council Environmental Quality team, the decision wasconditioned to ensure that if any sources of contamination are discovered while the development is carried out are reported to the Local Planning Authority and dealt with accordingly. With these points in mind approval was granetd for the commercial unit.
23/04022/CPL | Application for Lawful Development Certificate for erection of ground floor side extension | Meadow Farm Charlton Hill Wroxeter Shrewsbury Shropshire SY5 6PS.
Located in the picturesque Shropshire countryside in Wroxter the applicants were keen to extend their property but had initially had issues with the Planenrs so looked to employ En-Plan to assist.
En-Plan looked to understand the history of Wroxeter, also known as Viroconium Cornoviorum, was a Roman city and archaeological site located in what is now Shropshire, England. It was one of the largest and most important Roman settlements in Roman Britain. The city was established around AD 58 and became a thriving urban center during the Roman occupation of Britain.
Key features of Wroxeter included a forum, bathhouses, a basilica, a market, and a network of streets with well-preserved foundations. The city's layout followed the typical Roman grid pattern. At its height, Wroxeter was home to thousands of people and served as a center for trade and administration in the region.
The city declined after the Roman withdrawal from Britain in the 5th century, and it eventually fell into disrepair. Over time, many of its buildings and structures were dismantled and used for construction elsewhere. The ruins of Wroxeter were largely forgotten until the 17th century, when they were rediscovered and began to be studied by antiquarians and archaeologists.
Today, Wroxeter is an important archaeological site and a popular tourist attraction. Visitors can explore the well-preserved remains of Roman buildings and gain insight into the daily life of a Roman provincial city in Britain. The site includes a museum, which houses various artifacts and information about the history of Wroxeter and its significance during the Roman period.
The reluctance of the planners to allow development stems form the rich history of the area as demonstratd above and the landscpae character of the locality which is primarily characterized by its historical and archaeological significance, as it was once a prominent Roman city in Roman Britain. The landscape today reflects the remains of this ancient city and its surrounding areas. The most prominent aspect of Wroxeter's landscape is the presence of well-preserved archaeological ruins that mark the layout and structures of the Roman city. Visitors can explore the remains of walls, foundations, streets, and other features, providing insight into the city's urban planning and architecture. The site of Wroxeter is located in a relatively open and rural landscape in Shropshire, England. The surrounding fields and countryside provide a peaceful and picturesque setting for the archaeological remains. Wroxeter is situated near the River Severn, one of the major rivers in the region. While not directly within the city, the river's presence has likely influenced the historical development and landscape character of the area. In the vicinity of the archaeological site, there are museums and visitor facilities that help interpret the history and significance of Wroxeter. These modern structures, along with parking areas and pathways, are part of the contemporary landscape character.
The area around Wroxeter is often characterized by agricultural land use, including fields and pastures. The presence of modern farmland in the vicinity reflects the evolving landscape since the Roman period. While the Roman city itself is mostly devoid of structures, some vegetation and greenery may have grown in and around the ruins. The surrounding landscape may also feature trees, shrubs, and natural elements that contribute to the overall character of the area. Overall, the landscape character of Wroxeter is a blend of ancient archaeological remains, open fields, and modern facilities that facilitate the study and appreciation of the site's historical importance. It provides a unique opportunity to connect with the past and learn about the Roman presence in Britain.
Under the permitted development rights En-Plan were able to gain consent for a side extension as shown and this was verified by a Certificate of Lawfulness Application wich was subsequnetly approved by Shropshire County Council.
How can we help with your Certificate of Lawfulness Application
We’ve had great experience in dealing with property Development and can formulate an application and provide all the necessary information and drawings requited and will work with the Local Planning Authority to ensure a successful outcome. Please CONTACT US for a free no obligation consultation.