Permitted development rights Section 57(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) establishes that planning permission is required for the carrying out of any development of land. ‘Development’ is defined in TCPA 1990, s 55 as comprising: • operations affecting land (see Practice Note: Operational development), and • changes of use of land (see Practice Note: Material change of use) TCPA 1990, s 58(1)(a) provides that planning permission may be granted by a ‘development order’. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order (the English GPDO), SI 2015/596 (in England) and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (the Welsh GPDO), SI 1995/418 (in Wales) (together ‘the GPDO’) are development orders for these purposes. The GPDO sets out permitted development rights (PD rights), which are a national grant of planning permission through such a development order, which allow specified operational development and changes of use to be carried out without having to make a planning application to the local planning authority (LPA). See Practice

Permitted development in England The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, SI 2015/596 (the GPDO) provides a number of permitted development rights (PD rights) in England to develop within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. Where these apply, there is no need to apply to the local planning authority (LPA) for permission to carry out the work. PD rights may, however, be removed or restricted by a condition on a planning permission or by an article 4 direction, in which case a planning application will be required. See Practice Note: Permitted development in England for information on permitted development rights in England more generally. The Planning Portal provides interactive guidance for householders on when the residential PD rights apply. Where there is any doubt whether proposed development falls within the GPDO, the developer may apply to the LPA for a lawful development certificate to obtain a legally binding decision. See Practice Note: Lawful development certificates. What residential extensions are permitted development? The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of

Pursuant to section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990), planning permission is required for ‘the carrying out of any development of land’. ‘Development’ is defined in TCPA 1990, s 55(1) as: • the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land (see Practice Note: Operational development), or • the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land (see Practice Note: Material change of use) TCPA 1990, s 58(1)(a) provides that planning permission may be granted by a ‘development order’. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO 2015), SI 2015/596 and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO 1995), SI 1995/418 (together the GPDO) are development orders for these purposes. They allow specific types of development, set out in different classes in Schedule 2 of the GPDO, to be carried out without the need to obtain planning permission. Development which falls within a particular class of permitted

Types of investments that trustees are allowed to make under a scheme's rules. This term also refers to the investments stipulated by HMRC in connection with SSASs and registered pension schemes.

Banking & Finance analysis: In Mayfair Capital Residential 2 LLP v Reim Katch Securities, the court held that permitted payments under an intercreditor agreement should continue despite the appointment of a receiver.

Certain legal and lawyer-like services can be provided through businesses which are not regulated by the SRA or any other approved regulator.

Use by the tenant—Introduction As a general proposition, the absence of any specific restriction in a lease of commercial premises means that the tenant is free to use the premises as it pleases and for the purposes of whatever business is most advantageous to the tenant at any given time. However, there are a number of constraints which mean that (even if, however improbably, there is no specific restriction in the lease) the tenant never has complete freedom to do what it likes with the premises. These constraints fall into two broad categories: • constraints outside the lease—the tenant’s use of the property may be constrained by legislation (eg planning control), the general law as to public or private nuisance, or by covenants which affect the freehold title or a superior leasehold title • constraints within the lease—the tenant’s use of the property may be constrained by other covenants within the lease, eg covenants which affect the tenant’s ability to make any alterations which would facilitate a change of use, or

The rule against perpetuities (also known as the rule against remoteness of vesting) dictates that a future trust interest in property must be certain of vesting in the beneficiary within the perpetuity period. The Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009 (PAA 2009) applies to trusts taking effect on or after 6 April 2010 and to Wills executed on or after that date and provides there is a single mandatory perpetuity period of 125 years.

The rules relating to perpetuities and accumulations stem from the common law and the provisions in the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 (PAA 1964). These increasingly archaic rules were becoming troublesome and in 1989 the Law Commission started consultations on altering them. This culminated in a paper in 1993 identifying defects in the system and a final Report in 1998 with a draft bill which resulted in the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009 (PAA 2009). PAA 2009 came into force on 6 April 2010. It seeks to modify and simplify the law by making changes both to the rule against perpetuities (also known as the rule against remoteness of vesting) and the rule against excessive accumulations. Practitioners should still have regard to the old rules that continue to apply in certain cases. The rule against perpetuities exists to prevent property from being tied up indefinitely. There are three elements: • the rule against remoteness of vesting, which dictates that a future trust interest in property must be certain of vesting in the beneficiary within the perpetuity period • the rule against inalienability,

A stream of cash flows that theoretically will last for ever.

Title Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC* latest consolidated version — September 2016 Entry into Force 20 May 2004 Transposition Deadline n/a Amendments • Council Regulation (EC) No 1195/2006 of 18 July 2006 amending Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 on persistent organic pollutants (Text with EEA relevance) • Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2007 of 16 February 2007 amending Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 on persistent organic pollutants (Text with EEA relevance) • Commission Regulation (EC) No 323/2007 of 26 March 2007 amending Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC (Text with EEA relevance) • Regulation (EC) No 219/2009 of 11 March 2009 adapting a number of instruments subject to the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty to Council Decision 1999/468/EC with regard to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny —Adaptation to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny—Part Two • Commission

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: A is a creditor of FX Solutions Ltd and GlobalFX.Com Ltd which both entered liquidation in 2009. R2 controlled both companies. R1, his wife, was a director but not controller. In 2010, Mr Justice Flaux gave judgment for A against R2 in deceit: Lindsay v O’Loughnane. A achieved only partial satisfaction by way of enforcement. In 2022, he obtained an order attaching R2’s pension. In 2019, A applied under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) for an order that R1 and R2 repay three amounts wrongly taken from the companies. In 2021, A applied for summary judgment. Deputy Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Baister gave judgment against R2 to repay the first amount but allowed the remaining claims to proceed to trial. Written by Duncan Macpherson, barrister at 1EC Barristers.