fbpx

Thwarted by Planners? Persistence and Legal Advice Can Still Win the Day

29th December 2020 By

Obtaining authorisation for construction projects can be extremely demanding, but a combination of persistence and the right legal advice will often win the day. In a case on point, a householder whose hopes of building a garden room were time and again thwarted by planners was finally granted his wish by the High Court.

The householder twice applied to his local authority for a certificate confirming that his proposed development was automatically permitted under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO) and that formal planning permission was therefore not required. His applications were rejected on both occasions and his appeals to planning inspectors were dismissed.

His challenge to that outcome hinged on whether his plans fell within Class E of Schedule 2 of the GPDO. Class E permits the provision within the curtilage of a dwelling any building which is for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwelling. There was no dispute that the proposed garden room fell within that definition.

However, Class E places tight restrictions on the height and scale of new buildings. Relevant to the householder’s proposal was the requirement that the height of any structure, measured from the ground immediately adjacent to it, must not be more than three metres. Where a building is within two metres of a dwelling’s boundary, and is more than 2.5 metres in height – again measured from the immediately adjacent ground – it is also excluded from Class E.

Ground to the north of the proposed building had been excavated some years previously and the planning inspector who most recently rejected the householder’s case ruled that the height of the planned structure, measured from the existing level of immediately adjacent ground, would exceed three metres. The householder pointed out that the excavated ground would be back-filled in the course of the development. His argument that the structure’s height should be measured from the level of the ground post back-filling was, however, rejected.

Overturning the inspector’s decision, the Court found that the only sensible reading of the relevant parts of the GPDO accorded with the householder’s interpretation. Back-filling formed part of the plans he had submitted and the Court found that the building’s height should be measured from the level of the immediately adjacent ground on completion of the development. That height would be less than three metres.

The south flank of the building would abut a wall marking the property’s boundary and the inspector found that, when measured against the immediately adjoining ground – which could not be back-filled – that part of the structure would exceed 2.5 metres in height.

However, in also upholding the householder’s challenge to that ruling, the Court found that the ground immediately adjacent to the south flank should be taken as being his neighbour’s garden. That was less than 2.5 metres lower than the nearest part of the proposed building.

The Court concluded that the only correct answer to the issues raised by the case was that the proposed development fell within Class E and would thus be lawful development. The Court had no power to substitute its own decision for that of the inspector. However, it remitted the matter for reconsideration by the Welsh Ministers in accordance with its judgment.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Tenants Can Purchase Freehold When Landlord Cannot Be Found

11th June, 2024 By

The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 gives qualifying leaseholders the right to join together to buy the freehold of their properties – a process known as collective enfranchisement. A recent case demonstrated that this right can be exercised even when the landlord cannot be found. The leaseholders of two flats in a terraced house wished to purchase it from the landlord, but were unable to ascertain his whereabouts and therefore could not serve notice on him under Section 13 of the Act. They therefore applied for an...

Court Refuses to Set Aside Divorce Order Applied for by Mistake

6th June, 2024 By

While the courts have a range of powers to set aside orders, they will only exercise them in limited circumstances. In a somewhat surprising case that has attracted much comment, the High Court declined to set aside a final order of divorce that had been applied for by mistake. A couple separated in January 2023, after more than 21 years of marriage. In October that year, while financial remedy proceedings were still ongoing, the wife's legal representatives inadvertently applied for a final order of divorce in respect of her instead...

Waiting Time for Grants of Probate Falls

3rd June, 2024 By

Following concerns last year about delays in processing probate applications, recent figures from HM Courts and Tribunals Service show that waiting times for grants of probate are continuing to improve. The average time from submission of a probate application to probate being granted fell to 11.3 weeks in March 2024, a decrease from 13.7 weeks in February and 13.8 weeks in January. This is the lowest figure since March 2023, when the average was 10.8 weeks. The longest waiting time since then was in November, at 15.8 weeks: that month,...

Late Appeal Against Tax Penalties Rejected

31st May, 2024 By

It is incumbent on taxpayers to make sure they fully comply with their obligations to file returns and pay any tax due. The point was illustrated by a recent case in which a taxpayer whose return had not been received by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) failed to persuade the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) that he should be permitted to appeal against the resulting penalties. On the evening of 31 January 2014, the man had completed his 2012/13 Income Tax return on HMRC's website. Shortly afterwards he went to Cyprus, and...