Camden LBC v McDonald`s Restaurants Ltd
Camden LBC v McDonald`s Restaurants Ltd
- 1993
- Journal of Planning and Environment Law 1993 JPL 361-365(3) .
CA 6 October 1992. In 1972 C granted planning permission for a ground floor rear kitchen extension and the introduction of a new shop front on the premises in question which were being used as a restaurant. This use continued until 1987. In 1987 a company P applied for consent for a further extension. The application was refused. P appealed. A public hearing was held in July 1988 by which time the restaurant had closed and the premises were vacant. The inspector recommended the appeal be allowed. The SoS accepted this on condition that the development was begun within five years. In June 1991 the premises were bought by M. In the intervening years, the premises had been used as a bookshop. C wrote to M in November saying this would be a change of use and would require planning permission. M replied that they would rely on the 1988 permission. In May 1992 C wrote stating that this had lapsed and was no longer valid. At the first hearing the case was held in favour of M on the grounds
CHANGE OF USE
PLANNING PERMISSION
CA 6 October 1992. In 1972 C granted planning permission for a ground floor rear kitchen extension and the introduction of a new shop front on the premises in question which were being used as a restaurant. This use continued until 1987. In 1987 a company P applied for consent for a further extension. The application was refused. P appealed. A public hearing was held in July 1988 by which time the restaurant had closed and the premises were vacant. The inspector recommended the appeal be allowed. The SoS accepted this on condition that the development was begun within five years. In June 1991 the premises were bought by M. In the intervening years, the premises had been used as a bookshop. C wrote to M in November saying this would be a change of use and would require planning permission. M replied that they would rely on the 1988 permission. In May 1992 C wrote stating that this had lapsed and was no longer valid. At the first hearing the case was held in favour of M on the grounds
CHANGE OF USE
PLANNING PERMISSION