Last year, Artisan was instructed to make additional representations for an appeal relating to a certificate of lawfulness. The High Court had already quashed the decision and the appeal was remitted for redetermination.
The issue related to the interpretation of a condition requiring noise proofing attached to a planning consent in 2010. There was a question as to whether this condition, which was a pre-commencement condition, had been discharged prior to the commencement of development. If it was found that the condition had not been properly discharged, then the permission would not have been lawfully implemented and the consent would have lapsed.
The local planning authority and a third party argued that the sound proofing condition had a broader interpretation than the appellant. Consequently, it was argued that the appellant had not submitted sufficient detail to discharge the condition and that the consent was not lawfully implemented. Following further submissions in the reconsideration of the appeal, the second Inspector agreed with the LPA and third party. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court has now granted permission for the appellant to bring a statutory review (pursuant to s.288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) to review the lawfulness of the Inspector’s decision. The interpretation and scope of the condition is a matter of law. If the Inspector has erred in the interpretation of the condition, it is possible that the conclusions that followed also fell into legal error.
Max Short acted for the appellant in the redetermination appeal and is continuing to assist with the legal challenge.