Many cases begin before a formal notice is served.

The Council may send an initial enforcement letter, issue a Planning Contravention Notice, request information or state that it considers a use or development unauthorised. In some cases the letter may go further and indicate that a retrospective application is unlikely to be supported.

That is still not the same as the matter being over.

We have numerous examples where, following initial enforcement concerns, we have engaged with officers, arranged site visits, clarified the planning position, revised proposals and pursued applications that ultimately provided a route forward.

A retrospective application is one possible response, but it should not be submitted automatically.

Depending on the circumstances, the options may include:

• responding to or clarifying the Council’s allegation;

• providing information through a Planning Contravention Notice process;

• applying for a Lawful Development Certificate;

• submitting a retrospective planning application;

• amending the works or operation;

• negotiating a practical timescale or solution with enforcement officers;

• appealing a refusal; or

• appealing a formal enforcement notice.

The correct route depends on the legal position, the planning merits and the stage the enforcement process has reached.

Where retrospective permission is the right strategy, the application should be treated as seriously as any other planning submission.

The fact that development already exists does not mean the Council will approve it. The case still needs to deal with policy, design, amenity, heritage, noise or whatever issues are relevant to the site.

Where necessary, we coordinate revised drawings and specialist evidence so the Council is being asked to determine a properly supported proposal rather than simply endorse what has already happened.

The Westminster shopfront appeals demonstrate the point.

Unauthorised shopfront and signage works were already in place. Retrospective applications were refused. The refusals were appealed and both appeals were allowed.

That does not mean every enforcement case should be taken to appeal. It does show why the whole planning route needs to be considered from the outset rather than treating the first negative letter or decision as the end of the road.