The council stated that it had placed the decision on its website and had emailed a copy to the appellants’ agent. Additionally, it had sent a letter by first class post. The appellants’ agent stated, however, that no email had been received nor any written notification by post.
The inspector decided that placing a decision on the website fell short of the requirement under Part 24 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO 1995 to notify the appellants within 56 days of the application being received. Nor did he believe that the appellants, as a reputable telecommunications provider, would falsely claim that they had not received written notification. The council also accepted that the email had been sent to an incorrect address and while it had not been alerted by an ‘undeliverable’ message being received this also fell far short of being able to demonstrate that it had made all reasonable attempts to notify the appellants’ agent of its decision.
The inspector also rejected the contention that posting the notification to the agent was sufficient, based on the Interpretation Act 1978 and the Local Government Act 1972, to notify them of the decision. There was no receipt from a post office or sworn affidavit from a council officer, so that he could not be sure that any letter had actually been sent. On this basis the mast was permitted development and there had not been a breach of planning control.
Inspector Phil Grainger; Written representations
DCS Number 100-076-064
