Public forum

Thanks to those who responded to this post. I have today received clarification from the Planning Inspectorate as follows....

If a retrospective application is refused or not determined, an appeal can be submitted within 6 months of the date of refusal or the expiry of the period for determination. The power to grant permission at application stage is contained in s73A(2)(c) and at appeal stage in s79(4) of the 1990 Act.

If they submitted a retrospective planning application after the LPA issued the enforcement notice, the LPA may decline to determine the application under section 70C of the Act (as amended).  If that is the case then they cannot appeal against an LPA's decision to decline to determine their planning application.  This is what Paragraph: 013 Reference ID: 17b-013-20140306 is referring to. 

On the information provided it is unclear whether an enforcement notice has been previously issued and if not, Paragraph: 013 Reference ID: 17b-013-20140306 does not apply.

Finally, I do appreciate that the wording on the GOV.UK page maybe misleading or could be misinterpreted, however, The Planning Inspectorate has no control over what is published on those pages.

Well the 6 month period for lodging an appeal has now expired with no appeal submitted. However,  the LPA Enforcement team have been dithering and are insisting that they need access to the site to "gather evidence" though they are refusing to say what evidence they need. The applicant is refusing access to the LPA officers. The offending cabin is clearly visible as it is sited alongside the boundary with one road and only 25yards from an "A" road.

What evidence might the Enforcement team be requiring before deciding to enforce ?

Hello Richard. Following your advice last year I've been trying to speak to the LPA but they are not cooperative. I have engaged the appropriate District Councillor who is also getting nowhere so I have raised an official complaint. What I, the councillor and everyone else can't understand is - if there was sufficient evidence to refuse the Retrospective application, why is that not sufficient also to enforce the decision ? You mention that there may be many reasons to seek access to obtain further evidence, but could you offer a couple of examples relevant to this case ?

Regards

Will