Tuesday, 9 July 2013

Curtilage in relation to lawful use

I have received a comment from a planning officer which raises a question about a particular LDC application that they have received. I don’t think I should publish the officer’s comment in the form in which it was submitted, as it discusses the application in more detail than is perhaps appropriate in this forum. Nevertheless, the comment raises specific points of interest which I thought it worth discussing here.

A CLOPUD is being sought for development which is claimed to be permitted development. This depends on the land in question being domestic curtilage so as to bring it within the terms of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the GPDO.

Planning permission was granted for the erection of a dwelling on a smallholding. The officer says this was an outline permission. But before the dwelling was built there must have been a reserved matters approval. In any event it is the outline permission that constitutes a planning permission, and section 75 of the 1990 Act provides that where planning permission is granted for the erection of a building, the grant of permission may specify the purposes for which the building may be used, and if it doesn’t then the permission is to be treated as authorising its use for the purpose for which it was designed. (I am assuming that the house has actually been completed - failing which no PD rights under Part 1 could arise yet.)

If the approved drawings are examined, it should be easy enough to determine the extent of the planning unit to which that permission related, but this may no longer be of any great relevance because, in the case in question, evidence apparently indicates that the relevant area (now claimed to be ‘curtilage’) has been used as garden land well in excess of 10 years, and this would seem to indicate that its use has become lawful, so that it lawfully forms part of the same planning unit as the house.

Notwithstanding this, my correspondent refers to an appeal decision on another site in 2001 in an appeal against the refusal of a CLEUD for “use of surrounding area of land to house to use as residential”, which was dismissed because the Inspector concluded that “whilst it is unusual for a home not to have residential curtilage – no area is defined on the permission”. With respect to that inspector, this is a rather inaccurate and woolly statement. I suspect that what the inspector meant was that the permission did not identify any planning unit other than the footprint of the house itself (which is unusual but not unknown). However, in the present case, this is no longer relevant, because an area of garden land has been added to the planning unit, and the evidence indicates that this change of use has become lawful under the 10-year rule.

The next question is how far the domestic curtilage extends. I have discussed this issue in this blog ad nauseam, so just take a look through the various discussions on this issue. But ‘use’ as domestic curtilage is not a use for planning purposes – it is just a matter of fact, and it can change at any time very easily.

Two points should be borne in mind. First, by virtue of Art. 3(5)(b) of the GPDO, PD rights cannot be exercised over land whose use is unlawful. It follows that permitted development within a domestic curtilage cannot be carried out on land that is not lawfully in domestic use. So whilst there is no qualifying period for land to become domestic curtilage, it cannot be treated as domestic curtilage for the purposes of the GPDO if its residential use is unlawful or has not yet become lawful. On the other hand, if the relevant area is lawfully used as part of a planning unit falling within Use Class C3 (i.e. a single private dwellinghouse and the land occupied with it and lawfully used for domestic purposes) the domestic curtilage can be extended at any time to include an enlarged part or even the whole of that planning unit (see Sumption v. Greenwich LBC). Whether this has in fact happened is simply a question of fact, applying the test in Sinclair Lockhart’s Trustees and the other cases discussed in previous posts.

If the garden land is lawfully used as such (as seems to be the case here), then it is capable in principle of having become part of the domestic curtilage. In fact, if it forms part of the formal garden around the house, or a vegetable garden, and is not separated from the house by, say, a paddock or area of rough grass, then it is very likely that it is indeed part of the domestic curtilage. An LDC cannot be issued in respect of the ‘use’ of land as ‘domestic curtilage’ (for the reason previously mentioned) but a certificate can be issued in respect of permitted development that is dependent on the land in question being within the domestic curtilage (i.e. PD within Part 1), which in effect provides the desired confirmation of the status of the land as domestic curtilage, albeit by a slightly different route.

So in the case mentioned by my correspondent, it seems that the land in question is lawfully part of the residential planning unit, and it is simply a question of deciding whether as a matter of simple fact it does actually form part of the domestic curtilage as such. If it does, then (subject to the rules in Part 1 as to the precise siting and dimensions of extensions and outbuildings), it would appear that a CLOPUD ought to be issued in respect of the proposed domestic extensions.

I have gone through this case simply to show how questions of this sort should be approached. The outcome of the pending application to which I have referred will ultimately turn on a factual judgment as to the actual extent of the domestic curtilage, and this will depend on the evidence put forward by or on behalf of the applicant. In assessing this, planning officers should always bear in mind paragraph 8.15 in Annex 8 to Circular 10/97 and the judgment in FW Gabbitas v. SSE referred to in that paragraph.



Richard W said...


Another entertaining post but might I challenge your reading of Art 3.5.b of the GPDO?

(If only for sport.)

I believe your view rests on the idea that where the matter of fact curtilage overlays an unlawful garden use, the unlawfulness of the garden use triggers Art 3.5.b.

I agree that curtilage is not a use of land (in a planning context at least - despite the phrase retaining a clear sense in plain English). I agree that the underlying lawfulness of the garden use does not effect whether land is acknowledged as being within or without a curtilage as a matter of fact.

My challenge is that when 3.5.b says “THAT USE”, which use does it mean?

The GPDO says:

(5) The permission granted by Schedule 2 shall not apply if—
(a) in the case of permission granted in connection with an existing building, the building operations involved in the construction of that building are unlawful;

(b) in the case of permission granted in connection with an existing use, THAT USE is unlawful.

(& I’m praying it hasn’t been amended)

Could “that use” mean use of the land as curtilage? Not in a planning context.

Could it mean use of the land as a garden? Perhaps, but are any of the Part 1 PD permissions expressed as being in connection with “use as a garden”? They’re not.

Could “that use” mean use of the related building as a dwellinghouse? I would suggest yes. Each Class of Part 1 is expressed in connection with “a dwellinghouse” or “the curtilage of a dwellinghouse”. I think further support for this view could be drawn from the fact that in terms of the UCO this is the only option which is clearly identified for planning purposes as a Use per se.

If “that use” is therefore referring to the dwellinghouse (not the garden underlying the curtilage) then the only question would be whether the dwellinghouse use itself is lawful.

As a postscript, I wonder whether a quick route to amending the statutes to overcome the whole curtilage problem would be a simple amendment to Art 2 of the GPDO defining “curtilage” (for the purposes of the GPDO) as “the lawful planning unit contiguous with a building” or some such.

Martin H Goodall LARTPI said...

To answer Richard’s question, this provision was introduced in 1992, and was then carried over into the current GPDO in 1995. It has not been amended. As the editors of the Planning Encyclopedia put it, this paragraph excludes all permitted development rights under Schedule 2 in relation to buildings whose construction was illegal, and in relation to unlawful uses, for so long as enforcement action may still be taken in respect of the breach. Once a building has become lawful (under the 4-year rule) or a use has become lawful (under the 10-year rule), permitted development rights can be exercised in respect of that building or that planning use.

Richard asks whether “that use” could mean use of the land as curtilage (not in a planning context). My answer to that would be ‘No’. I don’t think that there can be any doubt that the paragraph refers to a use in the planning sense.

Richard then asks whether it could mean use of the land as a garden, but again I am firmly of the view that the word is intend only to refer to a use strictly in the planning sense, that is to say where there has been a material change of use of the land that was unlawful and which remains unlawful.

I think Richard may be confusing himself (and possibly our readers!). Let’s take the case of a detached house built with planning permission. The approved drawings will have included a site plan on which the area to which the planning permission relates is outlined in red. In the case of a detached house that red line will almost certainly have been drawn round an area of land intended to form a garden. The whole of the land within the red line constitutes the planning unit, and the use authorised by the planning permission (by virtue of section 75) extends to the whole of that planning unit. This is expressly stated in the legislation, but I haven’t got time at the moment to look up the relevant provision. Part, or quite possibly the whole, of that garden will also (as a matter of simple fact) form the domestic curtilage of the house, and permitted development rights will apply to it accordingly.

Now suppose that a piece of land outside the original red line is taken into the garden, and let us suppose that this was part of a field that was in agricultural use. The extra land is incorporated in the garden and cultivated as such, and rapidly becomes indistinguishable from the rest of the garden. Arguably it has (again, as a matter of simple fact) become part of the domestic curtilage. BUT – the change of use was unlawful, and can only become lawful after 10 years of continuous and uninterrupted use. Until that time, the use of the extra piece of garden land is unlawful. The effect of Art. 3(5) of the GPDO is to exclude PD rights from that part of the garden. So the owner cannot erect a garden shed or dig a swimming pool in that part of the garden, until its incorporation in the garden has become lawful under the 10-year rule.

With respect, in light of this point, I don’t think Richard’s other questions arise. However, I do entirely agree with Richard’s closing remark that it might be very helpful to amend the legislation to make it entirely clear what is meant by ‘curtilage’. My own preferred option would be to get rid of the wretched word altogether and to refer only to the “planning unit” (a term, incidentally, which you won’t currently find anywhere in the planning legislation!)

Richard W said...

I often do confuse myself (and others) so please let me try and clarify my thinking if I may.

First of all I agree that your interpretation is perhaps the more practical one and I wouldn’t want to set any hares running in any live case.

Art 3.5.b is explicit that the use which must be lawful is the use that the permission is granted in connection with and it is does not say for example “the use of the land upon which it is proposed to carry out development is unlawful” – which would unambiguously correspond to the orthodox reading of 3.5.b.

It seems to me that Part 1 permissions are fundamentally granted in connection with the use of a building as a dwellinghouse (and not any other use such as ancillary garden uses). As such, if the use of the building as a dwellinghouse was lawful might we not say that the use (which the permission has been granted in connection with) is lawful and therefore might we not say that Art3.5.b does not apply?

Class A, for example, makes no reference to any existing use other than a dwellinghouse. It says that “the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse” is permitted development. The permission is granted in connection with an existing use, in this case the use of a dwellinghouse. Such use is necessarily contained within a building. Garden use I would say was ancillary to this and not intrinsically part of it and the lawfulness or otherwise of various areas of garden cannot, I believe, affect the lawfulness of the house itself.

In Class E the situation is perhaps complicated by the curtilage question (which does not apply to Class A) but even here the curtilage is only relevant in expressing the area of land over which the permission can be exercised. The permission itself is still granted in connection with the dwellinghouse, and not the garden, and as we know, curtilage is not a use itself. Therefore I would suggest that again the only use that Class E permissions are granted in connection with is the use of the dwellinghouse itself (and not any other use such as ancillary garden uses).

Martin H Goodall LARTPI said...

I begin to see what Richard is saying, and his argument cannot be dismissed out of hand, but I suspect that it may not succeed in practice, if anyone were to attempt to run the argument in an appeal.

The heading to Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the GPDO is “Development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse”. This is only a heading, but judges have been known to refer to headings when construing the text of subordinate legislation. So it may, or possibly may not, affect the position. Only Classes E, F and H actually refer to development within the curtilage. All the other classes relate solely to extensions and alterations to the house itself.

Taking Richard’s point, it could be argued that any extension of the house under Class A and the various other works that can be carried out under Classes B, C, D and G can be undertaken as permitted development provided the erection of the house itself is (or has become) lawful (as per Art.3(5)(a)), without reference to the lawfulness of the use of the surrounding land, and irrespective of whether the land over which the extension is to be built is actually within the curtilage! And yet, and yet, I don’t think that this is an argument that is likely to go down at all well. LPAs can be expected to argue that the heading to Part 1 does confine permitted development under every class in this part of the Second Schedule to “development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse”. I have a shrewd suspicion that such a stance might well be supported by inspectors on appeal, and even by the High Court if called upon to adjudicate on this point.

The other classes of development within Part 1 (E, F and H) do depend on the land on which they are built being within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse (except that an antenna installed under Class H can be either on the house itself or, alternatively, within the curtilage). Playing Devil’s Advocate, for a moment, it might possibly be argued that, because ‘use’ of land as ‘curtilage’ is not a use for planning purposes, but depends purely on the factual test explained in Sinclair Lockhart’s Trustees, the exercise of permitted development rights over the curtilage is not dependent on the lawfulness of the use of that land, so that Art.3(5)(b) has no application in this context.

I am reasonably certain that this was not the intention of the drafting in Art.3(5). In fact, the wording was adopted in 1992 precisely in order to resolve difficulties that had been encountered with the previous wording. The purpose of this provision was to make it clear that PD rights could not be exercised in respect of a building or land where the erection of the building or the use of the land was in itself unlawful. On the other hand, it was also intended to make it clear that once the building or the use of the land had become lawful under the 4-year rule or the 10-year rule (whichever was applicable) permitted development under the GPDO was no longer precluded. The latter point had previously been a source of considerable doubt and difficulty.

So, whatever clever arguments might be concocted to show that development under Part 1 can be carried out irrespective of the planning status of the land in question, I am reasonably sure that both planning inspectors and the courts will find a way of construing the statutory provisions so as to defeat any such ploy.

Blinkiter said...

Do you think that the guidance in para 8.15 of Annexe 8 of Circular 10/97 is relevant only in regard to LDCs? Where the question of curtilage arises in a planning application should the LPA ask for evidence or can it simply decide the question? Eg the LPA (having advised the use of a householder application form) suddenly states, 6 weeks after it "validated" the planning application, that an enlargement of curtilage is needed in order to accommodate the house as proposed to be altered, and tells the applicant unilaterally that that is the case without asking for the applicant's evidence, and without telling the applicant on what evidential basis it makes the decision?

Martin H Goodall LARTPI said...

Annex 8 of Circular 10/97 is specifically concerned with LDC applications, but I have always taken the view that the same principles must apply where the issue of lawful development arises in an enforcement notice appeal (under Ground (c)), and I have referred to paragraph 8.15 when making submissions in enforcement notice appeals under s.174 where there is an issue as to the lawfulness of the alleged development.

On the other hand, I don’t see how Circular 10/97 could be of any relevance in the context of a planning application. The delineation of the planning unit is a matter for the applicant and the LPA to sort out between them, and the Court of Appeal decision in Barnett gives some guidance on this issue. Where one is dealing with an application for planning permission (as distinct from permitted development under the GPDO) the precise identification of the residential curtilage would not appear to be of any particular relevance, and I wonder if the planning officer is using the term ‘curtilage’ in the case mentioned by Blinkiter when what they are actually referring to is the planning unit.

Blinkiter said...

Thanks. Officers do confuse curtilage and planning unit, certainly. I have found that they think anything outside the curtilage is a change of use and that they are almost unable to consider the concept of planning unit as being different. But the DMPO contains several references to curtilage, including defining householder application as being one for development within the curtilage. I think this lets planning officers off the hook to some extent, as identification of the curtilage boundary seems to have become necessary in more instances than before, and because in many urban and suburban situations (the only ones for which the recent [supposed] simplifications seem to have been thought out) the two will be the same.

It would be nice if there could be some recognised mechanism of settling both planning unit and curtilage boundaries, perhaps at the pre-application discussion stage, but in some way that would be binding at least for the purpose of the forthcoming planning application. This would save everyone time and trouble.

Even in the absence of this it would be nice if LPAs, if they wished to take a point about the curtilage boundary in a householder planning application, had to do so by declaring the application not valid as such, setting out evidence and reasons and giving the opportunity either to appeal the non-validation decision, or to upgrade the application by filling in the other form and paying the extra fee!

Anonymous said...


I have been reading the above posts with interest. I have a Client who has extended the garden area by including part of a field. The Council has issued a Certificate of Lawful Use for use of that land as residential garden and/or amenity area in connection with the residential property. However the Council has stated that as the land is not within the residential curtilage it does not benefit from permitted development rights. It has not advised what it considers the residential curtilage to be and will advise on this is due course. It seems to be a bit of a grey area as to whether the land which is now lawful, has permitted development rights. Any advice will be appreciated.

Martin H Goodall LARTPI said...

The council has clearly accepted that the extra land in question now forms a lawful part of the residential planning unit, used for purposes falling within Use Class C3. An LDC cannot deal with the issue as to whether land is or is not within the residential curtilage as such, although if one wants to establish the point it is easy enough to apply for a CLEUD in respect of permitted development under Part 1 which would be dependent on the location of the proposed structure being within the domestic curtilage.

The stated view of the council’s officers that the land is not within the residential curtilage, so that it does not benefit from permitted development rights can frankly be ignored. It is of no binding legal effect on anyone. It is a simple matter of fact as to whether any particular part of the planning unit is or is not within the residential curtilage, applying the test laid down in Sinclair Lockhart’s Trustees and other relevant judicial authorities.

The fact that the additional land forms part of the residential garden and/or amenity area suggests at least the possibility that it is already within the domestic curtilage, provided it is contiguous with the rest of the curtilage and is not separated from it in any significant way. If the way in which this area is currently used does not meet the ‘curtilage’ test, then that can very easily be changed (see Sumption v. Greenwich LBC), provided the relevant test can be met. There is no qualifying period. As Sumption showed, once the area in question has been taken into the curtilage, then it must be taken to be part of the curtilage, and permitted development rights under Part 1 will apply immediately.

Anonymous said...

Hello, I Googled for an answer to the issue of Curtilage and permitted development rights. Your article appeared and it is very interesting so thank you. I have a situation personally, we own a three acre site within green belt our residence has never been extended so we applied and were granted permitted development rights last year. The property is overlooking a reservoir and we want to use the PD to build a boathouse on our boundary as close to the water as possible. This is approx 50 metres away from the main residence but within the planning unit. Our architect has said that curtilage should really be fairly close to the main house but following reading you comments it semms that our original plans for as close to the waterfront could be possible, it is after all going to be a boathouse. (We have permission to sail the boat from the canal and river trust). Do you think this would be acceptable as permitted development.

Martin H Goodall LARTPI said...

This question does not admit of an answer in this forum, as it clearly requires careful consideration based on its precise facts. However, it is the sort of point on which Keystone Law’s planning law team would be happy to advise if we were to receive instructions in the matter.

Anonymous said...

I too have experience the curse of curtilage confusion within our LPA.

Our acre plot has been attached to the house ever since the plot and house were sold in one transaction out of a larger estate during WW2. The plot is in a small village washed over by the green belt.

The plot is approx 100m wide and 50m across and about half of it is separated from the house by a rickety, post and rail fence/gate. Though mown as frequently as the other lawns the area beyond the fence is less intensively gardened, being used as an orchard and bonfire patch, and cycle cross area and has some old storage sheds within it and one could understand the issue of curtilage being raised if an application for a lawful development certificate under PD was made for an outbuilding which impinged upon it.

However, on an application for full planning permission for a garage (required since the proposed site was forward of the principal elevation) the LPA refusal was partially based on the fact that the garage would have extended slightly into the orchard and stated that curtilage extensions were unacceptable.

After 12 months and several attempts, permission has now been granted for a structure that would apart from its siting forward of the principal elevation be permissible under PD. Though the necessity to contain it within the "curtilage" still rankles we will implement what we've got since the more time we spend wrangling with planners the busier builders are getting and the more materials costs are increasing.

Martin H Goodall LARTPI said...

Questions of this sort are inevitably a matter of judgment, and so I don’t think one can second guess the planners in a case such as this.

Anonymous said...

Just to add in to this debate about Art 3.5.b of the GDPO

PD rights provided by Schedule 2 of the GDPO are subject to para 3 (5)(b) of the Order which restricts them to only existing lawful uses. However, as we see from 55(2) (d) and explained in para 8.3 (2) of Annex A of Circular 10/97, the use of land within the curtilage of a dwelling house is lawful because it is excluded from the definition of development in 55(2) of the Act.

Therefore the curtilage of a dwellinghouse is important because it make the use of land within it which is incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse lawful and thereby allows pd rights to apply.

A further aspect to this is s191(2) of the TCPA 1990 which says
(2) For the purposes of this Act uses and operations are lawful at any time if—
(a) no enforcement action may then be taken in respect of them (whether because they did not involve development or require planning permission or because the time for enforcement action has expired or for any other reason); and
they do not constitute a contravention of any of the requirements of any enforcement notice then in force.

The first part of this section prohibits the use of a time limit for lawfulness if the provisions are met by refering to ‘at any time’. Section (a) refers to the instance when no enforcement action may be taken because of a number of reasons, one being that it did not involve development (such as because of s55(2)(d)) or; because it does not require planning permission (such as because of s55(2)(f)). A further provision which must also be the case is that it does not contravene any current enforcement notice.

It seems to me that the provisions of the Act at 55 and 191 make clear that the curtilage of a dwelling house, if it can be defined in any particular case and at any particular time, will be sufficient to provide that the use of land within it for any incidental domestic purpose is lawful and that pd rights apply.

Martin H Goodall LARTPI said...

I think this is a slightly circular argument. The fact that land is (as a matter of fact and degree) within the curtilage or a dwellinghouse cannot in itself render the domestic use of that land lawful in planning terms if there has been an unauthorised change of use of that land (e.g. from agricultural use) which has not become immune, and therefore lawful, under the 10-year rule.

The area of land in question may, as a matter of fact and degree, now be incorporated in the domestic curtilage of the house, but if its incorporation in the planning unit is not (or has not yet become) lawful, then PD rights under the Second Schedule to the GPDO cannot (yet) be exercised over that part of the curtilage. This is what Article 3(5)(b) of the Order was intended to make clear.

jumpingflashjack said...

This problem of a curtilage will not go away it seems to me. I work as a planning consultant and own land taken into use as a garden without permission originally by my father 15 years ago. The land was not agricultural but used previously as recreation in my my view. The previous owner bred dogs and kept the occasional flock of sheep. This did not a farmer make in my view. The land was divided between the neighbours and despite my advice did not make an application to the council for permission, all expecting a refusal. Fifteen years on the LPA do not accept the land has a residential use or is included in the curtliage of a dwelling. After 10 years the various land divisions look domestic with sheds, chicken sheds, vegetable plots and trampolines. Various letters of mine still have to convince the LPA that the 10Year Rule applies. Their view is the land is only ancillary to the dwellings and in incidental use after 15 years. (The plot sizes vary but I can't see how that would make a difference.) That is too long. Everyone uses the land every day.
I have built several structures. They have not taken enforcement action but say they will if I build anything else. I might submit and LDC for a polytunnel to test the water.

Martin H Goodall LARTPI said...

In reply to ‘Jumping Flash Jack’ (27/02/14), the answer to his question is that it is ‘a matter of fact and degree’. If there was a material change of use of the land from some other use to domestic use (whereby it was incorporated in the same planning unit as the house) and this change of use took place more than 10 years ago, and the new use was continuous throughout the first 10 years after that change of use (and the use is still extant today) then, provided the evidence supports this on the balance of probability (having regard to F W Gabbitas v. SSE and paragraph 8.15 in Annex 8 to circular 10/97), the LPA is bound by law to issue a Lawful Development Certificate under section 191 upon application being made to them for such a certificate.

The evidence quoted (sheds, chicken sheds, vegetable plots, and trampolines) all points to a material change of use to domestic use having taken place. The land may ‘only’ [sic] be ancillary to the dwellings and/or be in ‘incidental’ use (i.e. use for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such), but that is more than enough to make this a material change of use to use for domestic purposes, involving its incorporation in the same planning unit as the residential property to which it has been added (thus bringing it within Use Class C3). It certainly appears that this change of use has become immune from enforcement and therefore lawful under the 10-year rule.

If the planning officers are so dense that they don’t ‘get’ it, then failing their granting an LDC, an appeal should be made to the Planning Inspectorate under section 195, accompanied by an application for costs against the council.

Whether or not the land in question is now also within the domestic curtilage of the house is a different question. It could not lawfully be within the curtilage until the use had become lawful under the 10-year rule, but it may be regarded as having been incorporated in the curtilage at any time since then, provided that it meets the test in Sinclair Lockhart’s Trustees. This, again, is a simple question of fact.

An LDC cannot be obtained in respect of 'use' of the land as curtilage (because this is not a use of the land in planning terms). However, if one wants to test the position, one could seek a CLOPUD under section 192 in respect of the proposed erection of an outbuilding under Part 1, Class E of the Second Schedule to the GPDO, which would of course depend on the site of the proposed building being within the curtilage of the house. It is also a necessary qualification that such a building is "required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such".

Anonymous said...

if a parcel of land has been for over 10 years used for domestic purposes and was originally linked to a house but the house has now been sold without the land, does the land still lie within the curtilage despite the change of ownership?

Martin H Goodall LARTPI said...

The short answer to this query is “No”. If you look at the criteria in Sinclair Lockhart’s Trustees it must be obvious that the land can no longer be in the curtilage of that dwelling. As Sumption confirmed, you have to look at the factual position now. The previous history is irrelevant so far as the identification of the curtilage is concerned (except as regards the lawfulness of the incorporation of the land in question in the planning unit).

Martin H Goodall LARTPI said...

Could I respectfully refer my anonymous correspondent of 30 June 2016to my post of Friday 17 June (Comments & Queries). If he would like an answer to his query, would he please email me, although this would naturally involve the payment of our professional fees. (We are reassuringly expensive!)