A local authority has taken so long to enforce a demolition order that it has been left with no choice but to regard the existence of the subject property as lawful.
Preston City Council had originally agreed to the construction of a replacement new house on the condition that the existing cottage property would be demolished. The cottage was to be removed prior to the new house being built. However, in 2011 the new property was built alongside the cottage on the rural farm site at Bourne Brow Farm in Inglewhite.
The reason given for the original requirement to demolish the cottage was for the site to comply with guidance on the protection of sites in the open countryside. This guidance suggests that it was considered acceptable for replacement properties to be up to 50 per cent larger than the existing dwelling.
However, the original house was not removed and the new property was built right next to it.
In such a scenario, a local authority would normally be able to take enforcement action to ensure the removal of the property. The action must be enacted before ten years from the commencement of construction – but in the case of the cottage it is now too late.
In documents seeking confirmation of the now lawfulness of the cottage, the original applicant, John Robinson, said that no enforcement action or breach of condition had been issued against him. He claimed that “therefore the time for taking enforcement action has passed and the development has become lawful through the passage of time”. In other words, the property was now “immune”.
Having failed to act, the council has been forced to issue a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development (CLEUD) in order to confirm that the existence of the cottage is legal, even though for the last decade it has been in breach of planning permission.
There has been no explanation from Preston City Council for not pursuing the enforcement.