In response to my unknown correspondent`s question this morning, the Council is wrong to claim that a breach of planning control that is now immune to enforcement (whether under the 4-year rule or, as in this case, the 10-year rule) is “still technically unauthorised”. Since the old provisions on immunity from execution put these developments in a kind of uncertainty, where they were immune from execution but were still technically illegal, amendments to the 1990 Act were adopted in 1991 and brought into force in 1992. Well, under paragraphs 2 and 3 of section 191 of the 1990 Act, a violation of planning control that becomes immune from the application of the law becomes legal. Although section 191 deals with certificates of the legality of existing use or development, its effect is not limited to situations in which a legal planning certificate has been issued. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of section 191 apply to all provisions of the 1990 Act. This was confirmed by the High Court judgment in Hillingdon LBC v SSCLG [2008] EWHC 198 (Admin), which stated that section 191(2) has the effect of rendering certain uses “lawful” for the “purposes of this Act”, i.e. the whole act, and confirmed that there is nothing to suggest that these clear words should take on anything other than their normal meaning. In the course of that judgment, reference was also made to Annex 1, paragraph 16, to Circular 17/92, which states that Article 191(2) (which provides that, for the purposes of the law, the use of land and operations is lawful at all times where enforcement measures cannot be taken against them) applies, whether or not an LDC has been issued in accordance with Articles 191 or 192 of the 1990. Act. It follows that an application for a certificate of legality of an existing use or development is not necessary to demonstrate the legality of a use or development that has become immune from execution.

However, some homeowners take the precaution of getting a certificate just to be on the safe side (for example, if they are considering selling the property and want to reassure a nervous buyer or a difficult developer acting on behalf of the buyer). All this is set out in detail in chapters 19 and 20 of my book The Essential Guide to the Use of Land and Buildings Under Planning Laws, which can be ordered by clicking on the link on the left side of the main page of this blog. Dear Martin, if a house is built with a building permit granted and the building regulations are signed after the completion of the house, BUT the subsequent owners find that the house was built slightly larger than the original building permit of the builders, then does the 4-year rule apply? DS you can also apply for a traditional building permit, but this will be a long and expensive process. This depends on the wording of the respective planning condition. In general, all building permits are granted subject to urban planning conditions. According to the law, a building permit can expire after a certain period of time, which is usually defined in the planning state. Unless otherwise specified in a building permit, the applicant has three years from the date of issue to begin development. If the work has not yet started, the building permit expires and the applicant must apply again for a new building permit.

If the unauthorised and counterfeit project has been in existence for years without application by the Council, it is very likely that you will be able to apply for a certificate of legality and remedy the situation. In fact, this is often essential, especially when it comes to selling or even pledging or pledging the property in question. Your local planning authority (LPA) monitors the implementation of the building permit, investigates cases of unapproved development and takes the necessary measures. If you violate planning control regarding the use of your property, your LPA may choose to enforce it against you. You may not have accidentally obtained a building permit, or a change in circumstances may mean that you no longer respect existing eligibility, one way or another, it is not uncommon for this to happen. Carrying out the development of your house without a building permit is not a criminal offence (with a few exceptions such as listed buildings, demolition in a nature reserve or other cultural property/sites). However, planning authorities have the power to correct violations through law enforcement. So, what if you are sure that your unauthorized development/use has become legal over time, whether under the terms of the 4-year rule or the ten-year rule? Therefore, the development of operations and the substantial change in the use of buildings or other land are subject to planning control and usually require some form of building permit. Your local planning authority (LPA) monitors planning violations and will apply the necessary measures if necessary. You may have unintentionally violated planning bylaws or your situation has changed, resulting in a violation of the existing permit.

Cases where the four-year rule prevents you from being applied include the regularization of a violation of planning control, the planning authority may require that a retrospective construction application be submitted for a violation of planning control. Enforcement powers under the Act include the ability to issue a notice of planning implementation, a notice of violation of the condition, a notice of stop and a notice of temporary stop. In England, there is also a planning execution order with regard to secret development. All have different terms, conditions, restrictions, and all have their own penalties and fines for non-compliance; For example, a planning implementation notice has a right of appeal, but a violation of the condition has no right of appeal, it only requires compliance with the corresponding development condition. If your property does not have the required building permit, there are four years during which your local council can take enforcement action to remedy the violation. The four years begin when development is almost complete. This point is addressed in paragraph 19.4.3 of my book The Essential Guide to the Use of Land and Buildings under the Planning Acts (pages 257-258 in the revised edition), to which I would like to refer Jake. While individual dwellings may be exempted from enforcement under Section 171B(2) [see Van Dyck v. SSE [1993]. 565 (CA)], so that any new residential unit thus created is subject to the 4-year rule, since conversion involves changing the use of each part in order to be used as a single residential building, it should be borne in mind that multi-occupancy houses fall under a separate category of use – C4 – and that the van Dyck rule would not apply to such a conversion. In paragraph 19.4.3, I also discuss an unresolved issue relating to the conversion of the building as a whole, which could probably still be subject to the 10-year rule.

If you need planning advice, our Urban planning department is here to help. You can read more about our team`s many years of experience here. Martin, I am the president of a village cricket club and we have had two cricket nets on site for over twenty years. The seat consists of two mats laid on a substrate with a concrete retaining wall on the floor, which also forms the anchor point for the metal rods that support the net around the two mats. We contacted the local council to see if a building permit is needed for a similar replacement. You have not found any documents on the issuance of a previous building permit (is it possible that this was not necessary for such developments in the past?) However, they do not seem convinced by the argument that this development has been around for a long time and therefore should not require a new building permit.