Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/00550/LAW Page 1 of 3
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/00550/LAW Applicant : Maxine Murphy Proposal : Certificate of lawful development for the installation of a roof lights Site Address : 20 Berkeley Street Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 3QA
Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 05.05.2023 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the installation of roof lights to the front and rear elevation (total of 4) and referred to in the information received on 28.04.2023 have been in place for a period exceeding four years and as such, the Department may not issue an enforcement notice due to the provisions of Town and Country Planning Act 1999 Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 3(a).
Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the location plan and aerial photographs and other supporting information all received on 28.04.2023. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
N/A __
Officer’s Report
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The application seeks a Certificate of lawful development for the for the installation of a roof lights. The application seeking the Certificate of Lawfulness was submitted on 28.04.2023. This means the relevant 4 years for consideration is from 28.04.2019.
1.2 In accordance with the provisions of Schedule 4, Part 1, paragraph 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 ("the Act"), a development carried out in breach of planning control
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/00550/LAW Page 2 of 3
shall become immune from enforcement action after a certain period of time, provided that formal enforcement action has not already been taken. The relevant time periods are set out below: a) in respect of a breach of planning control consisting of the carrying out without planning approval of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, after the end of the period of 4 years beginning with the date on which the operations were substantially completed; b) in respect of a breach of planning control consisting of the change of use of any building to use as a single dwelling house, after the end of the period of 4 years beginning with the date of the breach; c) in respect of any other breach of planning control, after the end of the period of 10 years beginning with the date of the breach.
1.3 Section 24 of the Act makes provision for the submission and issuing of a Certificate of Lawfulness to establish the lawfulness of a breach of planning control.
1.4 An application for a Certificate of Lawfulness is determined on the basis of fact. Unlike an application for planning approval, it is not concerned with land-use planning considerations or the impacts of the development upon the public realm.
1.5 The principal test is whether, on the balance of probabilities, the breach of planning control has occurred continuously for the given period. The burden of proof rests with the applicant and their evidence must be both precise and unambiguous. If the Planning Authority has no evidence of its own to contradict that provided by the applicant, then provided that the applicant's evidence is sufficiently precise and unambiguous, a Certificate of Lawfulness may be issued. It is not usually necessary for the Planning Authority to corroborate the applicant's evidence.
2.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 2.1 The application site is the curtilage of 20 Berkeley Street, Douglas which is a Victorian terraced property located on the northern side of Berkeley Street.
3.0 THE PROPOSAL 3.1 The planning application seeks approval for the Certificate of Lawful Development for the installation of a roof lights (total of four) to front and rear elevations of the main roof.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 There are no previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 No comments received at the time of writing this report.
6.0 ASSESSMENT / SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE PROVIDED 6.1 In terms of whether the roof lights have been in place for more than 4 years from the date of submission the Department considers that it has. The evidence supplied by the applicants, while not substantial in size, does suggest that the roof lights have been in place before 2018 and perhaps even longer before this time. The information includes: o Affidavit from the current owners indicating the roof lights were in place when they purchased the property in 2000; o Aerial photograph from 2018 (further Government Aerial photographs demonstrate the roof lights in place before this date); o Google Street View has partial images of the roof lights in 2010. . 7.0 CONCLUSION
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/00550/LAW Page 3 of 3
7.1 On the balance of probabilities, the evidence sufficiently demonstrates that the rooflights to the front and rear roof plane have been in place for more than 4 years ago and as such, the Department may not issue an enforcement notice due to the provisions of Town and Country Planning Act 1999 Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 3(a) and it is recommended that a Certificate of Lawful Development is granted.
8.0 RECOMMENDATION 8.1 It is recommended that the application for a Certificate of Lawfulness is agreed.
9.0 INTERESTED PARTY STATUS 9.1 As the application is for a CLU this is not required to be assessed. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 09.05.2023
Determining officer
Signed : J SINGLETON
Jason Singleton
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal