According to the application description, application 28/1382/00/F was subsequently amended by applications 28/1315/01/F, 28/1990/02/F and 28/0797/04/F, and this latest application seeks confirmation that 28/1382/00/F was lawfully commenced.

However, not recorded within this application was another historic application, namely 28/1381/00/CA, that sought ‘Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing buildings’, and this was the permission that authorised consent for the demolition of those existing buildings. Approval was given on the 14th February 2001.

As a consequence, we argued, it follows that the demolition was not part of the planning approval 28/1382/00/F (or any of the subsequent planning permissions for amendment) and that as a result the 28/1382/00/F planning permission was not implemented on that basis.

In our view there is substantial evidence, including the fact that no retail unit exists on the ground floor of the southern block of apartments, that the Certificate of Lawfulness should be refused.

According to the case officer the key issues that needed to be considered was:

Whether, on the balance of probabilities, the Applicant’s claim that planning consent 28/1382/00/F has been lawfully commenced and remains extant is well founded.

And in her opinion:

Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that planning permission 28/1382/00/F (‘2000 permission’) was lawfully commenced. Furthermore, even if and contrary to the Council’s primary position, development under the 2000 permission was lawfully commenced it can no longer be relied upon because it is now irreconcilable with the later planning permission 28/0797/04/F (‘2004 permission’) which has since been carried out.

The 2000 permission was therefore not lawfully commenced and, in any event, can no longer be lawfully carried out due to the implementation of the 2004 permission and the physical incompatibility between the two permissions.

The application was refused.