®Planning appeal decision
254-256 Belsize Road and 258 Belsize Road, LONDON, NW6 4BT
- Authority
- London Borough of Camden
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Change of use
- Inspector
- White P
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The appeals on ground (b) - whether the alleged breach (material change of use to sui generis serviced apartments for short term lets) has occurred
- The appeals on ground (d) - whether, at the date the notice was issued, no enforcement action could be taken because the use was immune from enforcement
- The appeals on ground (f) - whether the steps required by the notice exceed what is necessary to remedy the breach
- The appeals on ground (g) - whether the compliance period is too short
What decided it
The appellants failed to demonstrate that the use occurring was Class C3 rather than a sui generis use as serviced apartments for short-term lets, and failed to establish continuous four-year immunity for ground (d).
Judgments cited: Westminster CC v SSE & Aboro [1983] JPL 602; Ferris v SSE [1998] JPL 777; Gravesham BC v Secretary of State for the Environment (1984) 47 P & CR 142; Moore v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2012] EWCA Civ 1202; [2013] A.C.D. 19; Mayflower Cambridge Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1975) 30 P. & C.R. 28; Commercial and Residential Property Development Company Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment [1982] JPL 513; London Borough of Brent v SSLHC and Rothchild CO/3240/2021; Thurrock BC v SSETR & Holding [2002] EWCA Civ 226; Swale BC v FSS & Lee [2005] EWCA Civ 1568; Moore v Secretary of state for Communities and Local Government [2021] EWCA Civ 1202 (J.P.L. 2013, 2, 192-203)
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.