Personal Consent, Students, Material Change of Use, and House in Multiple O - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Andrew. Interesting! What exactly does the personal permission condition say?? Mike

1. I agree. How could it be justified.... that non-students are materially different to students. However. its not necessarily a material change of use from 4 flats into a single shared house for 11 people, in the first place. If the building comprised 4 flats, it might be a big place. Changing from 4 flats to one house does not amount to development needing permission. If it is a very big house, then it could be argued that 11 people might easily be accommodated. Therefore it could be argued not to be a material change from just a big house. That's all academic though, now and I should assume that consent was required. Depends on circumstances, each case on its merits mantra! Amenity / parking / character of street etc. 2. This one is a puzzle too. Why was it personal to the owner ? What was the justification and would it stand up to modern tests? I assume the consent was not temporary, (unless it was temporary for a few decades). Why should it be acceptable for owner A but not owner B to use it for the same purpose. Details, details.... 3. Nowadays as there is usually a condition stating the development must be carried out in 'full accordance'. In any case the description is a component part of the planning permission, so in the first instance it can be argued to be a deviation from the permission but is that deviation 'material' ? I don't think so. These things can be argued both ways but the way I look at things is this - establish what is agreed upon and what is in dispute. At the same time look at what the purpose of taking enforcement action would be. The LPA would have to justify why / what is the harm being caused by the argued breach, (if it were argued). Would an Enforcement Notice stand up? 4. CLU probably should succeed. Personally i would do nothing if I was the owner. Maybe I would apply for the CLU just to tidy up the paperwork and remove future doubt.

Thanks for your responses! To clarify matters, the description on the approval notice is: "Conversion from four flats to self catering student accommodation (eleven bedrooms)". There are then 3 conditions, the 1st being the standard 5 year limit for the time (this was 1985), and the 3rd specifying the amended plan the consent related to. The 2nd condition read: "2. This consent shall enure for the benefit of the [name deleted] only and for no other organisation nor persons." The reason stated for this is "To ensure the good management of the accommodation." In other words, at the time the LPA trusted the applicant as a good manager but wouldn't necessarily trust anyone else, which partly speaks to the nature of it being student accommodation in a residential area. Of course, the LPA wouldn't now get away with that kind of conditional response to the issue. Sadly, a CLU is necessary to formalise the current use - it's a problem associated with non-planning licensing regimes and future options for the site.