Loss of existing use rights
In Young v First Secretary of State [2004] EWHC 2167 (Admin), the court had to consider whether a planning application for the reconstruction of a fire-damaged property was actually for reconstruction and refurbishment, such that the local planning authority were entitled to consider the proposal as a new dwelling-house in the light of local planning policy.
Planning permission had originally been granted for certain alterations and extensions to the property prior to the fire damage. The planning authority took the view that, after the fire, the original planning permission could not be implemented and that a new application would be required for the rebuilding of the property. The applicants submitted an application, but the authority refused permission, since part of the proposed site lay outside the settlement boundary; because the dwelling was not required for agriculture, the development would be contrary to the local plan. This, the court said, was a perfectly reasonable approach. The property in its existing state was unsuitable for residential use and the new proposal effectively involved the construction of a new house.
Young highlights difficulties that sometimes occur in determining whether a proposal for development of an existing building is effectively development of a new building, thus entitling the planning authority to consider the proposals in the light of current planning policy. The physical condition of the property is clearly a key factor, but, ultimately, all that can safely be said is that cases should be considered on an individual basis.
Gill Castorina is an associate at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker (Europe) LLP
Loss of existing use rights
In Young v First Secretary of State [2004] EWHC 2167 (Admin), the court had to consider whether a planning application for the reconstruction of a fire-damaged property was actually for reconstruction and refurbishment, such that the local planning authority were entitled to consider the proposal as a new dwelling-house in the light of local planning policy.
Planning permission had originally been granted for certain alterations and extensions to the property prior to the fire damage. The planning authority took the view that, after the fire, the original planning permission could not be implemented and that a new application would be required for the rebuilding of the property. The applicants submitted an application, but the authority refused permission, since part of the proposed site lay outside the settlement boundary; because the dwelling was not required for agriculture, the development would be contrary to the local plan. This, the court said, was a perfectly reasonable approach. The property in its existing state was unsuitable for residential use and the new proposal effectively involved the construction of a new house.
Young highlights difficulties that sometimes occur in determining whether a proposal for development of an existing building is effectively development of a new building, thus entitling the planning authority to consider the proposals in the light of current planning policy. The physical condition of the property is clearly a key factor, but, ultimately, all that can safely be said is that cases should be considered on an individual basis.
Gill Castorina is an associate at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker (Europe) LLP
