As we noted in our objection, the applicant previously applied for a Certificate of Lawfulness for the commencement of development (2727/22/CLE), refused by the local planning authority with a decision dated 28 November 2022, details of which can be found both here and as an attachment to this objection.

For the reasons we explained, the expected route to be taken once you have received a refusal is to appeal that to the next higher body which, in this case, is the Planning Inspectorate. It is not to have multiple attempts submitted to the same body in an attempt to get the right result.

Acknowledging the application followed the previously refused application seeking the same, the case officer recognised that new evidence had been submitted to support the applicant’s position. As a result she concluded it was more likely than not that a number of potentially qualifying works will have been carried out on or around that date and it was more likely than not that those operations were not in conflict with the details approved in relation to condition nos. 9, 10, 11, and 13 of reserved matters approval 0826/20/ARM.

However that was not the case with condition 6 which required the installation of tree protection barriers, tree protection signs to be secured to the protection barriers, and for those barriers to be in place before any materials, plant, or other machinery were brought onto the site.

Failure to comply with that condition meant the works identified by the applicant as implementing the planning permission were carried out in breach, which was a condition precedent that went to the heart of the permission, with the result the application was refused.