tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post5907222557087364893..comments2022-12-13T14:45:12.233+00:00Comments on Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog: Residential conversion of offices in London – the Mayor wades in.Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-34884755588914506252019-08-29T09:53:47.831+01:002019-08-29T09:53:47.831+01:00I take it that Passer-by is referring to an Articl...I take it that Passer-by is referring to an Article 4 Direction.<br /><br />Article 4(2) provides that an Article 4 Direction does not affect the carrying out of development permitted by any Class in Schedule 2 which is expressed to be subject to prior approval where, in relation to that development, the prior approval date occurs before the date on which the direction comes into force and the development is completed within a period of 3 years starting with the prior approval date.<br /><br />This, however, would have applied only to the proposed development that was the subject of the previous prior approval, and subject to its completion within 3 years from the prior approval date. I do not see how this can be carried over to the current prior approval application. The Article 4 Direction would appear to me to preclude permitted development under any prior approval granted after the direction took effect. (However, as usual, this does not represent legal advice, and is simply an expression of opinion based on the very limited facts given by Passer-by.)<br />Martin H Goodallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-34208120931474207732019-08-22T11:47:04.708+01:002019-08-22T11:47:04.708+01:00In regards to this, on a current Prior Approval &#...In regards to this, on a current Prior Approval 'application', a planning consultant has argued that a Direction preventing CoU B1(a) to C3 does not apply where Prior Approval has been previously 'granted' prior to 15th September 2017. This seems a dubious assertion, at best, but other than by engaging the services of a reassuringly expensive lawyer, how might one go about establishing the veracity of such a claim?passerbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07133499748098929618noreply@blogger.com