Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
78 15A Derby Street - Application 14/2063/CLUED PDF 198 KB
Minutes:
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.