Sir, In April last year the planning committee of South Lakeland District Council voted to refuse an application by North West Parachute Centre for approval to fly on Fridays and 30 other weekdays in addition to their permitted Saturdays and Sundays and 14 other days.

The committee's decision was welcomed by a large number of residents of the Cartmel peninsula who dislike the droning of the centre's aircraft over their heads.

The centre was naturally displeased and sought legal opinion. Its counsel's advice was that planning permission was not necessary if the proposed application did not amount to a material change of use of land, for which it had a Certificate of Lawful Use, which was issued in 1997; such change could be approved by delegated powers invested in officers of SLDC. Counsel further advised that material change required there to be a change of the character of the use; intensification of the existing use did not amount to material change.

Officers of SLDC, mindful of the decision of the planning committee and of the strength of opinion in the Cartmel peninsula, also sought legal advice. Their counsel advised that, although a material intensification of use was proposed, ultimately the advice given to the Centre was correct. SLDC appears to have been thorough in its investigation of the matter returning to its counsel for clarification and further advice. The result was that on May 7 2004, a Certificate of Lawful Use and Development was issued, giving the centre what was requested.

I write to describe this matter because I feel the public should be aware of a paradox in the law governing Certificates of Lawful Use, namely that material use of land is not changed if the activity is intensified.

We can all agree, I think, that introduction of a different kind of use is a change, but may not intensification be an important change? Is no degree of intensification a change of use?

Another aspect of this matter is that there appears to be no democratic control after a certificate is granted; in this case since 1997. The will of the planning committee was irrelevant, the committee was not kept informed of the process and had no powers to affect the decision to issue a new certificate.

I wrote to my MP expressing my concern. In his reply he stated: "It would clearly be unfortunate if councillors sought to implement the preferences of the majority but were prevented from doing so by legal restraints."

As this has occurred, he is taking the matter up with ministers responsible for planning legislation.

Peter Le Mare Allithwaite