Last year, one of our clients challenged an appeal decision in the High Court. He was successful before Mrs Justice Lang and the appeal was remitted back to The Planning Inspectorate for redetermination. This was the second time the decision had been quashed by the High Court, which meant the appeal was now before its third Inspector. (Click here for a previous post about the High Court decision.)
The appeal was against the refusal of the local planning authority to issue a certificate of lawfulness for an existing use or development (CLEUD). When the appeal was heard previously, the issues included the proper interpretation of a condition and whether or not it went to the heart of a planning permission granted in 2010.
With those matters now resolved, the sole remaining issue was whether or not sufficient details were submitted to discharge the condition prior to the expiration of the planning permission. If the Inspector did not think that sufficient detail was submitted, then the permission would have lapsed and a CLEUD could not have been granted.
Last week, the third appeal decision was issued and our client was successful and he obtained the CLEUD. Interestingly, this case also saw the Inspector make an award for partial costs in favour of our client against a third party. The Inspector agreed with our view that it was unreasonable to submit expert evidence at a late stage in the process, when it could and should have been submitted much earlier.
The case serves as a useful reminder to plead arguments in the alternative. Trying to introduce new arguments with new evidence at a later stage of the process when your primary argument has failed can be problematic, maybe even unreasonable.
The appeal decision can be found here and the costs decision here.
Max Short acted for the appellant.
