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

BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN AND PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

By
 Planning conditions and planning obligations relating to biodiversity are, nowadays, relatively common.  However, it will probably be the case that current development control practices will need to be reviewed when the somewhat delayed Environment Bill finally obtains the Royal assent.   So far as development control is concerned, one of the principal provisions in the Bill relates to a condition which will be attached to the grant of most planning permissions as a matter of law.   This statutory condition will provide that the development in question cannot be commenced unless an ‘biodiversity management plan’ is submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.   One of the statutory requirements for such a plan will be that it should show a net measurable gain in ‘biodiversity’ of 10% when measured against the pre-development biodiversity value of the development site. The metric to be used is the Biodiversity Metric 0.2 which is limited to producing calculations for
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

SECTION 106 AGREEMENTS AND MANAGEMENT COMPANIES

By
Planning Authorities and the Avoidance of "Fleeceholding" Many section 106 agreements rely on private management companies to provide and maintain common infrastructure in development schemes, but this approach is not without its own problems It is sometimes proposed that the estate roads on a new development will not become highways maintainable at public expense; indeed, sometimes they will not become highways at all.   Likewise, it might be the case that public open spaces, on-site drainage and structural landscaping will not be adopted by any public authority. One of the matters which must then be considered by the local planning authority is that of the future maintenance of these common parts.   Given that the local highway authority will have statutory duties in respect of new roads, one would anticipate that they will engage a similar exercise. If it is proposed that common parts are to be privately maintained, then the arrangement chosen by the de
Read more