47 and 51, Borrowdale Road, Liverpool L15 3LD Appellant : Victor Gerald Nolan MAN/00BY/HML/2022/0001-AND-0002
DECISION
[1]15 The decision that the Tribunal is required to make is a simple one. It is effectively being asked if it should vary the length of the licences granted by the Respondent and leave the Respondent then to decide, through its planning department, whether to seek to take enforcement action against the Applicant for use in breach of the current planning permission for a single dwelling. The Alternative is to uphold the respondent’s view that the onus is upon the Applicant to secure planning compliance and limit the length of the licences to a period of time that will enable that process to be undertaken and concluded.[2]16 Within documents provided in this case is a statement from a council official, Mr Crawford, setting out in quite extensive terms the observations of the Upper Tribunal in London Borough of Waltham Forest v Khan as to where the onus of seeking compliance should reasonably fall. It is not unreasonable to expect that to be upon the Applicant. Nor is it unreasonable, according to that case, for the respondent to limit the length of a licence only to a period of time that enables this to be done.[3]17 The Tribunal concurs with those general principles and is comforted in that view by the fact that although the Applicant may well be able to show sufficient established use as HMOs he does not yet appear to have established that sufficiently to justify either the Respondent or this Tribunal making a decision upon planning law that is within the remit of either. It is a matter for the expertise and judgement of the planning process exercised by its appropriate officers skilled in that field.[4]18 The Tribunal does, however, accept that the Applicant is experienced in the operation of HMOs and , from what it saw on the inspection, appears to run these two properties to a reasonable standard.[5]19 While it would have been ideal to have commenced the planning process whilst these appeals have been pending, it is highly likely that it is unreasonable to expect that process to be concluded before the licences, as they now exist, come to an end. The Tribunal considers that as at December 2022 it is appropriate to vary the licences so that they expire on 30th June 2023 to enable that process to be undertaken and concluded.