researcher

I think that presumption's a false one and that there's no such requirement. If in doubt try asking 'Who can make a planning application?' So it's firm evidence at most of just their belief that they might be setting up shop there. Putting in an early anticipatory application for their display signage, to lessen any dead time waiting for the permission, might well be a worthwhile expense. They don't seem to have withdrawn the application, so are at least presumably still interested in taking over the premises.

Most of the 'side return' extensions done on ED semi-detached houses have I think been done by people who own the whole house. In my case I own just the upper flat, and share the freehold of the house with the owner of the lower flat, who wants to extend that. Has anyone been in a similar situation? Are there any particular issues or problems that have arisen or might do so? And if I need professional advice, any recommendations?

.

/forum/read.php?25,2084627

https://www.picturehouses.com/membership-join

LanaJade Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi thanks for this, If I appeal and it is not > unheld would I then need to pay the whole fine and > miss out on the "half price" fine within 14 days. Have a look at London Councils' "Understanding Parking Penalties" https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/services/parking-services/parking-and-traffic/parking-advice-members-public/understanding-parking#The%20Charge%20Certificate.

Have a look at the judgments in Newman, Gillingham & Essoo & Khan, and Banks, all at https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/key-cases?field_subjects_value=Box+junction&combine=.

I wonder if it is modelled on this one in Rochester. http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2914539 http://www.frenchhospital.org.uk/huguenot-heritage-centre/

@Marcus, although the 30/10/2012 decision of the appeal against Southwark's refusal of application 11/AP/3865 is on the Southwark site, as http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/261007_1.pdf, the Costs Decision of the same date seems not be there. It is available at http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.4781599, found after entering the appellant's name with spaces, 'D M L Contracting'. The council was ordered to pay costs on only the third of the three grounds on which the application was based, and it was left to the parties to agree the amount. None was mentioned in the judgment or the application. The application is at http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/227682_1.pdf. There is a further planning application 13/AP/3306 still pending ("Application type: S.73 Vary/remove conds/minor alterations") at http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9551626. "Consultation period ends: 17/11/2013".

@adonirum, DML Contracting and Decorating Masters Limited are two different companies. DML Contracting Ltd is shown as dormant from 2006 and in the accounts made up to 31/3/2013. Decorating Masters Ltd is shown as still active. Steve Thorpe is also listed as director of Gordian Resolutions Ltd (dormant at 31/3/2012) and Thorpe Group Ltd (active, net worth of about ?4m at March 2012).

I had two sources of information: myself and the police. With the first defendant pleading guilty, discontinuing the prosecution against the second doesn't look unreasonable if there was no eye witness evidence that he personally did damage.

I've found out some details of a case of a spree of criminal damage to car windows, etc, that happened late on a Sunday evening last September. I think this was mainly in Ashbourne Grove and Melbourne Grove. Some local residents saw some of it and followed two men who were then arrested by the police. Some of the witnesses later provided statements. I understand that the case came to court in January and that one man pleaded guilty to eight charges of causing criminal damage and one of using threatening words / behaviour. He was sentenced to twelve weeks imprisonment suspended for twelve months and ordered to do 100 hours unpaid work. I believe that several compensation orders totalling more than ?2,000 were also made against him. The case against a second man who didn't plead guilty was discontinued.