- Islington’s revocation of Ocado’s CLEUD judged lawful by High Court (R (on the application of Ocado Retail Ltd) v Islington London Borough Council)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- TCPA 1990, s 193(7)
- Continuous use
- Case details
Planning analysis: The High Court rejects Ocado’s challenge to revocation of certificate of lawfulness of existing use or development (CLEUD) by London Borough of Islington (LBI). Local residents identified material information was withheld when the CLEUD application was made. Mr Justice Holgate held (i) withholding of information does not have to be deliberate; (ii) a breach of condition, or material change of use must be continuous for relevant period for immunity from enforcement to be gained; (iii) once lawful use right accrues its continued existence does not depend upon that right continuing to be exercised; (iv) once immunity is gained, the right can only be lost via abandonment or a supervening event. The judgment is important because (i) applications for CLEUDs can be made relying on a lawful use having accrued that is not continuous at the point of application; (ii) care is needed when submitting CLEUD applications not to withhold information even if that information is otherwise available to a LPA. Written by Sarah Fitzpatrick, head of planning at Norton Rose Fulbright.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial