Do we have a legal case?  Key facts/questions:-

• Original planning permission 1996

• Foundations begun before 5 year statutory period elapsed but not signed off until after the 5 year period had elapsed. (Is the planning permission still valid?)

• There is doubt as to what has been approved as the plans provided in support are incomplete, contradictory and not appropriately stamped (by law what must the planning dept.be able to produce in support of planning approval?)

• Development started in Sept 2013. The dept. initially claimed that the development was built to plan but after the shed was completed (and after intensive lobbying) they have admitted that it has not been built to plan being 0.9m wider than what is purported to be approved. They are saying that recent changes to national guidance gives them discretion in deciding whether to enforce planning permission and they have chosen not to do so. (Does this new guidance apply in retrospect?) Given that they made an error whilst measuring the structure at the start of construction and would therefore (presumably) be liable for the cost of removing the shed (should they choose to enforce the breach of planning permission) there appears to be a conflict of interest. (Has the planning dept. been negligent? How can we challenge their decision? Can we require an independent review? How do we challenge using the ‘public confidence in the process’ argument?)

• There have been further breeches in relation to the pre commencement conditions attached to the planning permission, as outlined in letter dated 4 April. In that letter the planning dept. indicate that they do not consider that late compliance is an issue although they agree to attempt to enforce the condition about not allowing boat repair within the shed unless the ends are ‘fully enclosed’. The owners had previously ignored this and had commenced repair work without meeting this condition. In a subsequent letter (2^nd May) to all local residents the planning dept. appear to retract this and take the stance that because the development has not been built to plan the conditions are not enforceable. However, as stated above, the dept. also indicated that they are not going to challenge the fact that the development has not been built to plan. This is counter-intuitive and illogical. (Can the planning dept. legally argue that the developers, who have not built to plan are, as a result, not subject to the conditions?) The planning dept. have said “The difficulty (we) have is that the established use of the slipway is for general industrial purposes and in effect they can quite lawfully undertake works to repair boats on the slipway and across the entire site.” This seems to say that the condition was never enforceable. (Are conditions attached to planning permissions intended to override any general principles relating to the use of land?)

• The planning dept. have categorised the site as having general industrial status. (Does this industrial status have a legal definition and if so how does land acquire such a status?) The planning dept. seem to suggest that the granting of historic planning permissions (whether or not they were subsequently acted upon) are sufficient and there seems to be no discrimination between small scale boat repair and large scale intrusive industrial activity. (What rights do local residents have to challenge definitions, changes of use or scale of activity?)

Attachments: Letter 04 Apr 2014 and 02 May 2014