®Planning appeal decision
1 Wellington Mews , London, N7 8SQ
- Authority
- London Borough of Islington
- Appeal type
- ldc · Lawful Development Certificate
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Change of use
- Inspector
- Wharton T
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether sufficient precise and unambiguous evidence has been provided to demonstrate that each flat has been in a separate lawful Class C3 residential use since 1935 and that none has been ancillary or incidental to HMP Pentonville
- Whether sufficient precise and unambiguous evidence has been provided to demonstrate that any flat could have achieved lawfulness by virtue of a change of use from Class C2A to Class C3 for a continuous period of 4 years
What decided it
The flats were built in 1935 as prison officer accommodation outside the main prison walls but within its curtilage, with occupation tied to prison employment, controlled vehicular access via the prison gates, and management controls typical of ancillary prison service housing, and the appellant failed to provide sufficiently precise and unambiguous evidence to demonstrate they had ever been in independent Class C3 use or had acquired immunity from enforcement action.
Judgments cited: Burdle v Secretary of State for the Environment [1972] 3 All e.R.240,244; Gravesham Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment: QBD 1982; Cottrell v SSE and Tonbridge and Malling BC [1982] JPL 443; Thurrock BC v SSETR & Holding (CA)[2002]; Panton and Farmer v SSETR & Vale Horse DC [1999]; Ocado vs London Borough of Islington dated 7 June 2021
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.