®Planning appeal decision
38-40 Windmill Street, London, W1T 2JX
‘confirmation that the caravan compliant container shown in the plans accompanying this application meets the approval granted in application 2023/4907/P’
- Authority
- London Borough of Camden
- Appeal type
- ldc · Lawful Development Certificate
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Other minor developments
- Inspector
- Savage M
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the Council's decision to refuse, or in respect of Appeals A and B its deemed refusal of, the certificate of lawfulness is well-founded
What decided it
The appellant failed to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the proposed container would meet the statutory definition of a caravan, and the Inspector found it would constitute a building requiring planning permission due to its substantial size, likely need for fixing in place, and permanence on the fourth-floor terrace.
Judgments cited: Measor v SSETR & Tunbridge Wells DC [1999] JPL 182; Wyre Forest BC v Allen's Caravans [1990] 2 WLR 517; Cardiff Rating Authority v Guest Keen Baldwin's Iron & Steel Co Ltd [1949] 1 KB 385; R (oao Save Woolley Valley Action Group Ltd) v Bath and North East Somerset Council [2012] EWHC 2161 (admin); Barvis v SSE [1971] 22 P&CR 710; Breckland DC v SSHCLG [2020] EWHC 292 (Admin); Chester CC v Woodward [1962] 2 WLR 636, 2 QB 126; Dill v SSCLG & Stratford-on-Avon DC [2017] EWHC 2378 (Admin), [2018] EWCA Civ 2619, [2020] UKSC 20; [2020] JPL 1421; Hall Hunter v First Secretary of State [2007] 2 P.& C.R.5
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.