Q&As

A lawful development certificate was granted for the occupation of a dwelling by someone not employed in agriculture thus rendering the agricultural occupancy condition unenforceable. Can there be any sound reason to refuse a section 73 application to remove the condition?

read titleRead full title
Published on LexisPSL on 02/01/2018

The following Planning Q&A provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • A lawful development certificate was granted for the occupation of a dwelling by someone not employed in agriculture thus rendering the agricultural occupancy condition unenforceable. Can there be any sound reason to refuse a section 73 application to remove the condition?

The Local Planning Authority (LPA) in this situation may be relying on the judgment in R v Coventry City Council Ex p Arrowcroft Group Plc, which is sometimes cited to refuse an application under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) which seeks to amend conditions which would be inconsistent with the description of development authorised by the original permission. In Arrowcroft, the court held that LPAs can only impose different conditions upon a new planning permission under TCPA 1990, s 73 if they are conditions which the LPA could lawfully have imposed upon the original planning permission, in the sense that they do not amount to a fundamental alteration of the proposal put forward in the original application. So, where an application under TCPA 1990, s 73 would lead to a fundamental inconsistency between the conditions and the description of the development contained in permission, it must be refused, see Practice Not

Related documents:

Popular documents