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

NULLITY v VOIDABILITY AGAIN !!

By
The Court of Appeal and another conceptual wrestling match

The Court of Appeal decision in R.(Guled) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 92 was an immigration case which is of wider interest within the field of administrative law generally and, for the purposes of this Blog, planning and development.

The point of interest relates to a short debate about the perceived difference between ‘nullity’ and ‘invalidity’.An administrative action which is found to be unlawful can, sometimes, be characterised as being a ‘nullity’ (aka ‘void ab initio’ or just ‘void’) and the prevailing judicial wisdom is that an action which is a ‘nullity’ at law has no legal existence.An action which is said to be ‘invalid’ has a legal existence unless and until it may be quashed by the courts.There is, however, a major flaw in this seemingly simple distinction; namely, that the people may act upon, and change their positions, in reliance on something which a nullity in law. Thus, they …
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

NOTES ON THE ENVIRONMENT BILL

By
Image
Some time ago, I participated in a webinar about the Environment Bill.It was a short introduction to some planning aspects of the Bill.These notes are by way of a short summary of the points made in the webinar.The webinar focused upon the planning and development aspects of the Bill only and was limited to England only.In broad terms it went from general to particular; namely, from national policy to development control.[1]The starting point being, of course, national policy.I then went on to look at what I described as “Local Biodiversity Reports” and then to consider the impact of the Bill on development control.I hasten to add that the label “Local Biodiversity Reports” was my own label and did not figure in the Bill.The Bill introduces certain overarching environmental policies.Arguably, they will filter down to both local plans and development control.Clause 16 of the Bill requires the Secretary of state to prepare a “policy statement on Environmental Principles”. Clause 16 (2) …
Read more