Appeal 6002335

I decline to determine the appeal and propose to take no further action.

The planning application form suggested that the intention of the appellant was to vary or remove condition 3 of a previous planning permission for a detached two storey building in rear garden to create new carport and garden store with hobby room, Council reference Ref P07/0771, dated 12 June 2007, under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act). However, the Council registered it as a full planning application.

Due to the uncertainty, during the course of the appeal I sought clarification from the appellant. The appellant subsequently confirmed that the application was not made pursuant to Section 73 of the Act. Instead, it was submitted as a full planning application. Accordingly, I have dealt with the appeal on that basis taking the description of the proposed development in the banner heading above from the Council’s decision notice.

Article 7(1) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (the Order) requires, amongst other things, that an application for planning permission must be accompanied by a plan which identifies the land to which the application relates. An exception to this is where the application is made pursuant to section 73 of the Act.

Section 327A of the Act requires the local planning authority not to entertain such an application if it fails to comply with any requirement of the Act, or any provision made under it, as to the form or manner in which the application must be made. This is further reflected in the Planning Practice Guidance1 (the PPG) which states 1 Paragraph: 024 [name]: 14-[phone] that such a plan should ensure that the exact location of the application site is clear and that the application site should be edged clearly with a red line.

As the full planning application was not accompanied by a location plan, with the application site edged red, the planning application considered by the Council was invalid. As a consequence, the Council could not have lawfully granted planning permission for the proposed development.

While the local planning authority determined the planning application, Section 79(1) of the Act empowers the Secretary of State to deal with the application as if it had been made to them in the first instance. It follows that I am entitled to make a fresh judgement on validity.

The absence of a location plan with the application site edged red means that the extent of the site, as well as the location, is not clear. This is not a minor omission and to proceed with the appeal would be both inappropriate and incur a risk of serious prejudice to interested parties. Something which the Act, the Order and the PPG all seek to avoid.

Section 79(6) of the Act provides that if, before or during the determination of an appeal, the Secretary of State forms the opinion that planning permission for that development could not have been granted by the local planning authority, he may decline to determine the appeal.

For the reasons given above, I conclude the appeal to be invalid. The procedural shortcomings of the current submission are not readily capable of any reasonable remedy. I am therefore not in a position to progress matters and cannot proceed to consider the planning merits of the case. Accordingly, I decline to determine the appeal and propose to take no further action.