Applicant seeking to register prior notification application for development – Respondents finding deficiency in information and refusing to register application – Whether respondents’ decision unlawful – Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 Schedule 2 Part 6 – Application dismissed
On 1 August 1997 the respondents received a prior notification application (PNA3) from the applicant regarding the development of his agricultural business on land in Cornwall. On 5 August the respondents informed the applicant that the PNA3 should be “accompanied by a written description of the proposed development and of the materials to be used and a plan indicating the site together with any fee required to be paid”, in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 Schedule 2 Part 6, A.2. A series of correspondence followed, in which the respondents reiterated their request that the applicant clarify “exactly the materials to be used”, indicating that the 28-day determination period would not commence until a valid application had been received. The applicant sought judicial review of the respondents’ refusal to register the PNA3 under the GPDO on the ground that not enough information had been supplied. The issue was whether the respondents had acted unlawfully.
Held: The application was dismissed.
In construing the phrase “a written description of . . . the materials to be used” in Article A.2(2)(d)(ii) of the GPDO, it should be borne in mind that this was a convenient and quick procedure to determine whether or not the development could be carried out. Furthermore, it was of assistance to a planning authority that there was a degree of specificity about such an application. There was no degree of specificity if all that was required was that the applicant specified a range of materials, reserving the choice for himself once development proceeded. The phrase in Article A.2(2)(d)(ii) was a reference to materials, which “will”, not “may”, be used if development was carried out. The correspondence showed that the applicant wished to keep his options open as to the materials to be used. He had not complied with the requirements of Article A.2(2)(d)(ii) and the decision of the respondents was not Wednesbury unreasonable.
Marc Willers (instructed by Battens of Yeovil) appeared for the applicant; David Forsdick (instructed by the solicitor to Caradon District Council) appeared for the respondents.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
