Decision details

The Committee received an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness under Section 191 for use as an independent dwelling

(C3).

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from Mr Sakol.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Spoke on behalf of various objectors.

     ii.          The applicant needs to prove continuous use in order to apply for a certificate of lawfulness, this was not evidenced as the building had instead been used for a series of short term lets eg the property had been advertised as a holiday apartment.

   iii.          Suggested there was no planning permission to let 15A, it should have the same use as the main building.

Mr Hare (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Rod Cantrill (Ward Councillor for Newnham) addressed the Committee about the application.

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Asked the Committee to consider the following:

·       Was there sufficient evidence that 15A had been used continuously as an independent dwelling house.

·       As the use of the studio as an independent dwelling was a breach in conditions of use, had this occurred for over ten years, and so no enforcement action need be taken.

     ii.          15A had been marketed as a holiday let and available for short term lets, so some voids were to be expected. Queried if this affected continuous use (as opposed to continual).

   iii.          The Applicant had ignored original planning conditions as soon as planning permission had been given by allowing the studio to be occupied as an independent dwelling to the main property.

Shapour Meftah (Ward Councillor for Trumpington) addressed the Committee about the application. He said that on the balance of probability 15A had been in continuous use for over ten years.

Councillors sought clarification on whether evidence was required to demonstrate continuous or continual use/occupancy of 15A. The Legal Representative said that continuous use needed to be demonstrated on the balance of probability (ie not beyond all reasonable doubt). Councillors asked if there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate occupancy for over ten years (and so avoid the need to take enforcement action). The item was deferred to clarify this information.

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved to defer to seek further legal advice.