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

QUESTIONS ON ENVIRONMENT BILL

By
I recently spoke (if this is the right word) at a webinar on the Environment Bill, hosted by Bath Publishing. We had a good response in terms of questions from delegates (probably not the right word) but could not tackle them all on the day. I have listed them below and will try to answer them all over coming weeks.

SO WATCH THIS SPACE !



Can I just clarify - this Bill is for England only?Do you think local plans will need to demonstrate biodiversity/environmental improvement can be delivered on sites allocated for development to show they are viable, deliverable and developable (10% uplift in biodiversity/environmental improvement)?Where local planning authorities seek to achieve a net gain in biodiversity on current applications, i.e. ahead of the finalising of the Bill, how much weight does their request have when the gain isn't mandatory yet?Could the 'Responsible Person' be the Local Nature Partnership?Apologies if this will be answered later but existing policies allow…
Read more

ON WHY BIODIVERSITY ENHANCEMENT AND BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN AMOUNT TO THE SAME THING.

By
The re-emergence of the Environment Bill has heralded some considerable debate about the proposed statutory enshrinement of the concept of biodiversity net gain.There have been arguments about whether this a good thing or a bad thing.Arguably, those debates are slightly academic because the reality of the situation is that biodiversity net gain is already with us.

In terms of statute we have section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.Section 40(1) provides as follows: “(1) [A] public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.” A “public authority” includes a Minister of the Crown, a public body, a government department, a local authority and a local planning authority: Section 40(4). Section 40(3) then provides an extended definition of “conserving”: “(3) Conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habita…
Read more

A STRANGE TALE OF STONEHENGE

By
Image
Given that the summer solstice is fast approaching, it provides the excuse to regale those interested in highway law with a tale which comes close to being very strange.

It has to do with culs de sac[1], ancient monuments, the “vulgar public” and too much Latin.
Lord Eversley’s book “Commons, Forests and Footpaths The Story of the Battle During the Last Forty-Five Years for Public Rights Over the Commons, Forests and Footpaths of England and Wales” (Cassell & Co.) was published in 1910. He was the president of the, then, Commons Preservation Society (which later became the Open Spaces Society by merger). In part, the book explains the background to the fencing around Stonehenge and the legal battle which then ensued over it. As a broad generality, it is fair to say that it is difficult to show that a cul de sac is a highway.The problem being, of course, that it is not a through route.The conventional wisdom is that a highway is a route which connects two separate points.The conceptua…
Read more