Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Allowed10 September 20213259107

1 Stanlake Mews, LONDON, W12 7HA

Continued use of the property as Class B8 (Storage and Distribution) with ancillary office, showroom, studio and servicing/repairs facilities. Summary

Authority
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
Appeal type
ldc · Lawful Development Certificate
Procedure
Inquiry
Development
employment-industrial · Change of use
Inspector
Renaudon L

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • Whether the Council's decision to refuse to issue a certificate was well-founded, or put another way whether the use contended for by the appellant (or any other use) existed on the date of the application and was lawful such that a certificate should be issued
  • First, what was the use of the application site begun on or before July 2007 - is this the same as the use specified in the application and is it sufficiently particularised
  • Secondly, was that use carried on for an uninterrupted period of at least 10 years such that the Council could have issued an enforcement notice at any time during the whole of that 10 year period from July 2007 to July 2017
  • Thirdly, had there been any significant supervening event since the expiry of the 10 year period, if that immunity period is established, such that any acquired use rights had been lost by the date of the application
  • Alternatively was a use begun before December 2009 and carried on without interruption until the date of the application

What decided it

The Inspector's finding that the lawful use established and continued at the site matched the 1970 s.43 determination description (encompassing repair, servicing, testing, storage and distribution) rather than the appellant's claimed pure Class B8 storage/distribution use, and that this use had not been lost or superseded by the date of the application.

Judgments cited: R (Ocado Retail Ltd) v LB Islington and others [2021] EWHC 1509 (Admin); LB Islington v SSHCLG [2019] EWHC 2691 (Admin), [2020] JPL 532; Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council v SSCLG [2009] EWHC 1012 (Admin); Ellis v SSCLG [2009] EWHC 634 (Admin); Swale BC v SSE [2005] EWCA Civ 1568, [2006] JPL 886; Thurrock BC v SSE [2002] EWCA Civ 226, [2002] JPL 1278; Main v Secretary of State for the Environment (1999) 77 P&CR 300; Panton & Farmer v SSETR (1998) 78 P&CR 186; Nicholson v Secretary of State for the Environment (1998) 76 P&CR 191; Gabbitas v Secretary of State for the Environment [1985] JPL 630; Impey v SSE (1984) 47 P&CR 157; Farm Facilities v SSE [1981] JPL 42

The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.