Lawful development certificate

Peterxxxx

hello helpful people -- this is my first post but I am a long-time lurker and enjoy and learn from the advice. My neigbour recently applied for planning permission to turn the bottom half of his long, narrow garden into a huge shed - we're talking the best part of 40 feet long and 10 feet wide. There was lots of local suspicion that it was going to be for residential use (the house is an HMO in a poor part of London and some of the gardens round here are used in this way) and the residents' association opposed the development on these and other grounds. Anyway this was thankfully turned down on the grounds that it would spoil the character of the gardens and was out of proportion to the size of plot and other factors -- it was a very categorical decision. Now the landlord has applied for a lawful development certificate for the same proposed structure. I don't really understand this or how it differs from planning permission. If anyone here has any advice or information, that would be incredibly helpful, as I am worried that there is some legal loophole here. Many thanks...

DVardysShadow

I believe that a Lawful Development certificate is effectively getting it in writing that a development falls outwith the scope of planning law, ie that Planning Permission is not required.

casperlarue

only time for a quick google search, this extract taken from communities.gov.uk, Lawful Development Certificates:

A certificate granted for a proposed use or operation will describe the precise
use or operation on a site in the terms considered permissible without the
need to make a planning application for it.

Peterxxxx

many thanks for that -- in opposing this new request, can I simply refer to the previous decision which ruled that the development was opposed to several aspects of the Unitary Development Plan (hence planning permission was denied)? Or will I need to build a new case which argues simply that the structure should fall within planning permission?

DVardysShadow

You have to go for the latter. If the developer prevails and gets the LDC, then the Unitary Development Plan counts for nothing. Or so it would seem to me.

You need to know the argument given for it being Lawful Development ideally and then argue that the reason given is wrong.

Peterxxxx

in his application for the LDC, there are no legal reasons put forward - he just says that he wants the shed as it will make the garden look better! So there's no legal argument to argue against in this case, unless he submits that later on. I did google something which said that it's very much up to the applicant to make a convincing case and so far it looks as if he is not bothering to do that, but I want to make sure all bases are covered! Planning issues seem to be one of those odd things which forces normal people to become lawyers!

DVardysShadow

Well, he needs to state a legal reason why it is Lawful Development, but as he has not, you get no clues. You now need to provide a reason why it requires PP rather than an LDC. Worth a visit to the planning office. The Planning Officers are likely to want to remain neutral in dealing with you, but I imagine if you ask the right questions you will get useful answers. So "if I wanted to do the same, can you tell me why I would need PP?" and listen carefully to the answer.

Peterxxxx

thanks, DV - that's very helpful and clear guidance. I'll give planning a call tomorrow and try to speak to someone. What he calls a shed is in fact - when you look at the plans - a 10 metre cabin which will run right along my fence, so I am hopeful that something like that would need PP (which would - if the last judgement holds - be denied), but I don't want to take any chances and will do as you say. I know one of the tenants in the house and he has heard that this will have a residential use, but that can't be proved. Do you think it's worth mentioning this as a reason for requiring planning permission (i.e. it won't be simply an ancillary outhouse) or do you think that that suspicion/rumour will be considered worthless and maybe annoy the planning people?

Peterxxxx

Hello all - I called planning and spoke to the officer in charge of the case. It was quite frustrating as he says this is a legal issue and so he decides based on the legality alone and that I shouldn't even send in a comment as it would be irrelevant. And yet, if it goes through, I have no right of appeal. So I'm not sure what to do. My inclination is to send in a letter regardless, but I don't want to annoy the officer who has already told me to leave it to him. Any thoughts appreciated....

Richard_Webster

If it is merely a question of whether or not a particular proposal requires planning permission then this is a legal issue and will depend on the interpretation of the rules that allow "permitted development".

If it would be lawful if used for purpose X but would require planning permission if used for purpose Y and you think it will be used for purpose Y then they will ignore any letter by you in coming to their decision but it might prompt their enforcement office to wander round in a few months time to check it is being used for purpose X.

planning_officer

Hi - as others have said above, an application for a Lawful Development Certificate is a legal decision based on whether the structure falls within the permitted development rights of the property (it is basically a formal answer to the question 'is this permitted development?'). Therefore, it is pretty much irrelevant if you object or not, as it's either permitted development or it's not (there is a list of criteria with which it must comply in order to be permitted development, re. size, height, distance to boundaries etc). Planning policies have nothing to do with such an application, as it's not an application for planning permission.

Having said that, dwellings have permitted development rights for ancillary structures (sheds, greenhouses, summerhouses etc), but you say this is a HMO - and they have no permitted development rights. This application should therefore be a straightforward refusal. Are you sure this is a HMO rather than a dwelling (as that makes a big difference!). If you think it's a HMO, it's worth writing to object to the application by stating that the property is a HMO, just in case the planning dept are unaware of that (although they really should be).

If, on the other hand, it is a dwelling, then one of the criteria with which an ancillary building must comply in order to be permitted development is that it cannot exceed 2.5m in height if it's located within 2m of any boundary - you say it will be located next to your boundary, so it may not comply with this criterion.