Breach of Condition on adjacent site within applicants control a reason for - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

I have come across a similar case where the LPA are refusing to give permission for acceptable development until possible breaches of planning control in other parts of the site are resolved. My advice from colleagues is that this has no basis in law. We are outside the six month period for appealing against non-determination and our only possible route is a complaint of maladministration. If you are within the six month period I would suggest an appeal. If the LPA give any reasons why they think that their stance is lawful please post them on the site. Equally if you appeal and it is determined.

I've also got an identical case where a LPA are witholding retrospective permission for a shed in one corner of a field (which they have confirmed is acceptable on it's planning merits) ... because of some unauthorised engineering operations in another corner of the same field. The 2 are completely unrelated other than by land ownership. Mind you the shed that we applied for retrospectively has probably now become lawful!! I agree with Les (as usual) that this approach is ultra vires and could be considered to be maladministration. A non-determination appeal would seem to be the best approach.

Thank you for your responses. It is hugely frustrating as we don't want to cause any delay to the current application as my client has a great tenant lined up to take the unit. I have suggested that we (once again) inform the tenants that they are still breaching conditions and ask for conformity but the officer wants the matter resolved before this application is determined. I agree that the approach is ultra vires. I will ask them for their reasons of why they belive their approach is lawful and threaten appeal on non determination grounds, lets hope that that will take note and decide to grant the permission. If the enforcement team then take action on the breaches on the other unit, then so be it. I will let you know how I get on! Thank you once again and happy Friday! :-)

Provided the two matters really are completely unconnected then the LPA should deal with them as separate matters - each on it's own merits. What happens in practice of course is another matter and the Council will know that they have your client in a tight spot because you probably won't want the delay of an appeal and possibly losing a good tenant in the process (something which even a successful non-determination costs-claim for won't rectify!). Why not ask the LPA to explain the reasons for the delay in determining your planning application in writing. Remember that the new NPPF says applicants are entitled to a decision without delay. Also consider asking them to identify exactly what their planning concerns are (if any) with the proposal so you can consider your position and warn of a possible appeal if they don't get a move on and can't identify any demonstrable harm/objections. Get something in writing and keep it in reserve for your costs claim. Finally, I often see cases where there is a very big fuss over a condition that shouldn't have been imposed in the first place. Is the Council right to be concerned about the breach of conditions going on in the other building in the first place?