CERTIFICATES OF LAWFULNESS & THE MATTER OF EVIDENCE

By



Statutory Declarations & Certificates of Lawfulness

Planning practitioners often need to seek certificates of lawfulness in order to perfect the planning title to their clients' site.  This means that they need to provide the right evidence in the right format, and this is not without its pitfalls.


In his widely read blog, Martin Goodall once said that the current national advice on the determination of certificates of lawfulness is woeful when compared to that provided in the now revoked Circular 10/97: See ‘Useless new planning guidance’, 7 March 2014 (http://planninglawblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/useless-new-planning-guidance.html).  In particular, he noted that the reference to the important case of F W Gabbitas v SSE and Newham LBC [1985] JPL 630 was removed in the cut & paste (my words) which led to the “National Planning Practice Guidance” (NPPG). This was previously summarised in paragraph 8.15 of Annex 8 to Circular 10/97.

One may wonder whether the Inspector in a recent appeal against the refusal of certificate of lawfulness might have benefited from more fulsome advice on the law. There, the applicant relied on statements which were not statutory declarations.  The Inspector concluded that : “.  . . . as they do not contain the necessary form of wording set out in the Schedule to the Statutory Declarations Act 1835.  Furthermore they appear to have been witnessed by a resident of Wood Cottage rather than a solicitor or commissioner for oaths.  I therefore afford these documents limited weight given that there can be no sanction such as a fine or jail term if found to be untruthful.” Whilst is right to say that (all other things being equal) a statutory declaration might carry more weight than a less formal statement, it is wrong to give those statements limited weight by reference to matters of form only.  Particularly given that he had noted “ .  .a lack of evidence from the Council to contradict the appellant.” That much is clear from a reading of Gabbitas - which was not mentioned in the decision letter.  If an Inspector is concerned about this matter, then he has the option of calling an informal hearing or an inquiry to test the evidence.

The Inspector went on to say that, in any event, the contents of the statements fell short of proving the appellant’s assertions. Speaking from the experience of having vetted many such statements on behalf of LPAs, they are often poorly prepared and miss key evidential points. Applicants might save themselves (and LPAs) a lot of trouble if they engage planning lawyers to prepare this type of statement at the outset.  

Appeal Ref: APP/X1355/X/17/3181946
Wood Cottage, Hesleden Road, Hesleden TS27 4PA

Comments

Post a comment

Popular posts from this blog

A SHORT ARTICLE ON LOBBYING

By
This article relates to R (Holborn Studios) v London Borough of Hackney [2020] EWHC 1509. One of the issues related to the submission of information to a member of the planning committee by way of lobbying and the reactions of both the member and the council when dealing with that information. An examination of the judgement shows that the analysis boiled down to two particular points which are worthy of further commentary. First, the question of whether or not this process involves considerations relating to freedom of expression. Secondly, perhaps more importantly, the way in which members and councils should react to lobbying.   The facts The facts of the case are relatively complicated because they include a long discussion about the rights and wrongs of an economic viability assessment which was presented to the council with the objective of demonstrating that the scheme was not capable of accommodating affordable housing. The developer had aspirations to redevelop a site for empl
Read more

BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN A SUITABLE CASE FOR TREATMENT?

By
  The Environment Act 2021 will promote biodiversity net gain by way of a number of mechanisms but principally by way of a statutory condition which will be imposed upon most substantial planning permissions. In a nutshell, the condition provides that the developer must provide a biodiversity gain plan to the local planning authority and that this plan must be approved prior to the commencement of development. At first blush, this seems like a relatively straightforward provision; however, it is arguable that it is not particularly well thought out. This article will explore the shortcomings in this approach and, also, discuss a possible methodology for overcoming those flaws A 'zero sum' problem The initial problem is an economic one. Those familiar with larger development schemes will now also be familiar with economic viability assessments. An economic viability assessment is a financial model for the scheme itself. It is a snapshot in time and the parameters of the mode
Read more

THE ADVANCE PAYMENTS CODE & THE 'SIX WEEK RULE'

By
I have found that many delegates from highway authorities are worried about the consequences of missing the six week deadline for the service of APC notices. This article considers that topic. The "advance payments code" The “advance payments code” (“APC”) means the code provided by sections 219 to 225 of the Highways Act 1980: Section 203(1).   The APC has effect for securing payment of the expenses of the execution of street works in private streets adjacent to new buildings: Section 204(2). The APC ensures that a sum equivalent to the likely costs of making up the private street is paid to the highway authority or secured before a new building is erected.   The objective of the exercise being to put the highway authority in the position of being able to step in and carry out the street works in the event that the developer fails to do so. A developer is not entitled to commence work (unless the works are exempted) on a building served by the st
Read more