UPDATE ON ENFORCEMENT LAW 6th JULY 2007 -RTPI CELINA COLQUHOUN.

UPDATE ON UPDATE ON ENFORCEMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT LAW

6th JULY 2007 -RTPI6th JULY 2007 -RTPI

CELINA COLQUHOUN CELINA COLQUHOUN

3G R A Y 'S I N N

S Q U A R E

CONTENTSCONTENTS

Part 1Part 1Consequence of proposed Consequence of proposed Review of Enforcement LawReview of Enforcement Law

Part 2 Part 2 Recent Enforcement casesRecent Enforcement cases DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT TIME LIMITS/IMMUNITYTIME LIMITS/IMMUNITY NULLITY & INVALIDITYNULLITY & INVALIDITY INJUNCTIONSINJUNCTIONS PROCEDUREPROCEDURE CONDITIONSCONDITIONS EN & COMPLETION NOTICESEN & COMPLETION NOTICES

CONSEQUENCES OF REVIEWCONSEQUENCES OF REVIEW

““REVIEW OF THE PLANNING REVIEW OF THE PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM OF ENGLAND” – ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM OF ENGLAND” – consultation ran until 31st December 2002consultation ran until 31st December 2002

Chp 7 Q.12 - Chp 7 Q.12 - LATE AMENDMENTS TO LATE AMENDMENTS TO PLANNING & COMPLULSORY PURCHASE PLANNING & COMPLULSORY PURCHASE BILL included “TEMPORARY STOP BILL included “TEMPORARY STOP NOTICE” – tabled 24th February 2004 ref- NOTICE” – tabled 24th February 2004 ref- Keith Hill Hansard col 52-53WS as a result Keith Hill Hansard col 52-53WS as a result of the review.of the review.

PLANNING & COMPLULSORY PLANNING & COMPLULSORY PURCHASE ACT – Royal Assent May PURCHASE ACT – Royal Assent May 13th 2004 – 13th 2004 – Section 52 inserted Section 52 inserted Ss 171E, F,G and H into principal Ss 171E, F,G and H into principal ActAct

Town and Country Planning Town and Country Planning (Temporary(Temporary Stop Notice) England Stop Notice) England Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No.206)Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No.206)

Circular 02/2005 Temporary Stop Circular 02/2005 Temporary Stop Notice 7th March 2005Notice 7th March 2005

REVIEW OF PLANNING REVIEW OF PLANNING ENFORCEMENT: SUMMARY OF ENFORCEMENT: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS November 2006November 2006

Follows Oct 2002 consultationFollows Oct 2002 consultation List of 25 “Recommendations and List of 25 “Recommendations and

Measures DCLG intends to take Measures DCLG intends to take forward to promote good forward to promote good enforcement practice”enforcement practice”

10 of the recommendations are no 10 of the recommendations are no change to current system(Nos change to current system(Nos 2,9,10,11,13,14,18,20,21 and 25)2,9,10,11,13,14,18,20,21 and 25)

““changes” :- 4 address changes” :- 4 address financing/fees (3,4,6 and 22); 3 are financing/fees (3,4,6 and 22); 3 are aimed at promoting priority and aimed at promoting priority and image of enforcement (1,7 and8); image of enforcement (1,7 and8); and 4 address 2 new good practice and 4 address 2 new good practice guides (15 and 16 )for LPAs and (23 guides (15 and 16 )for LPAs and (23 and 24 ) for JJsand 24 ) for JJs

3 recommendations are to be subject 3 recommendations are to be subject to further research and consultation to further research and consultation (No.5 – charges for compliance and (No.5 – charges for compliance and monoitroing;monoitroing;

No.12 – unlawful developments No.12 – unlawful developments notices and new PCNs; and notices and new PCNs; and No.19No.19 – – proposal to abolish 10 year time limitproposal to abolish 10 year time limit

Part 2 - RECENTPart 2 - RECENTENFORCEMENT CASESENFORCEMENT CASES

DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT Waverley BC (planning appeal decision)Waverley BC (planning appeal decision) [2006] [2006]

JPL 761JPL 761 that moveable ‘polytunnels’ could that moveable ‘polytunnels’ could constitute ‘development’ and is not a use of the constitute ‘development’ and is not a use of the land but is a building operation and hence land but is a building operation and hence ‘development’.‘development’.

Beronstone Ltd-v-First SofSBeronstone Ltd-v-First SofS[2006]EWHC [2006]EWHC 2391(admin) 2391(admin) EN required removal of 554 EN required removal of 554 wooden posts laid out to define plot boundaries wooden posts laid out to define plot boundaries within site in AONB and Green Belt. HHJ Mole QC within site in AONB and Green Belt. HHJ Mole QC on appeal against dismissal rejected notion Ins on appeal against dismissal rejected notion Ins under an obligation to define threshold at which under an obligation to define threshold at which conglomeration of posts became “development” . conglomeration of posts became “development” . His approach was unassailable – took account of His approach was unassailable – took account of extent, viability, form and degree of permanence. extent, viability, form and degree of permanence. Decision upheld.Decision upheld.

Re Kennet DC and British Waterways – Ref Re Kennet DC and British Waterways – Ref App/W1715/A/05176 App/W1715/A/05176 (EN appeal)(EN appeal) whether whether use of land for mooring of residential use of land for mooring of residential barges/boats which were not in course of barges/boats which were not in course of navigation was a material change of usenavigation was a material change of use

Appeal on ground (e)- [failed ]- only landowner Appeal on ground (e)- [failed ]- only landowner (BW)and leaseholder had been served. Indiv (BW)and leaseholder had been served. Indiv owners as occupiers under licence should have owners as occupiers under licence should have been served (as officer had advised). In circs been served (as officer had advised). In circs hwoever where requisition notice only id’d BW and hwoever where requisition notice only id’d BW and leaseholder and copy of notice had been fixed to leaseholder and copy of notice had been fixed to post at site entrance and substantial number of post at site entrance and substantial number of boat owners attended no signif prejudice by failure. boat owners attended no signif prejudice by failure.

Appeal on ground ( c) – Appeal on ground ( c) – [succeeded] [succeeded] EN alleged “EN alleged “unauthorised use of land for mooring unauthorised use of land for mooring

of residential barges/boats not in the course of of residential barges/boats not in the course of navigation”.navigation”. Based on evid it was accepted Based on evid it was accepted predominant use was not residential.Insp predominant use was not residential.Insp changed EN to “home mooring of barges/boats”. changed EN to “home mooring of barges/boats”.

Planning unit Insp held to be canal as entity Planning unit Insp held to be canal as entity including its banks at Ladies Bridge is incidental including its banks at Ladies Bridge is incidental and ancillary to use of canal therefore not MCU. and ancillary to use of canal therefore not MCU. Inspector noted unusually large size.Inspector noted unusually large size.

Insp accepted contention was that based on test Insp accepted contention was that based on test in in Harrods-v-SSETR[2002] EWCA Civ412Harrods-v-SSETR[2002] EWCA Civ412 “home”mooring of boats was reasonably “home”mooring of boats was reasonably incidental to canal primary use and no MCU.incidental to canal primary use and no MCU.

R (on the application of Wallis)-v-R (on the application of Wallis)-v-National Assembly for WalesNational Assembly for Wales [2007 [2007]JPL ]JPL 962962

Mr Wallis had pp for change of use from Mr Wallis had pp for change of use from sewage works to kennels subject to sewage works to kennels subject to conditions that, inter alia, kennel/hound conditions that, inter alia, kennel/hound lodge and associated run area only to be lodge and associated run area only to be used for accommodating dogs owned by used for accommodating dogs owned by him and not to be used in any other him and not to be used in any other capacitycapacity

Subsequently sought pp for residential Subsequently sought pp for residential caravan - refused and appeal dismissed. caravan - refused and appeal dismissed. EN issued in respect of this change of use.EN issued in respect of this change of use.

On appeal Insp rejected argument that there was On appeal Insp rejected argument that there was need for caravan to secure well-being of dogs as need for caravan to secure well-being of dogs as such special circs only relate to commercial such special circs only relate to commercial kennels which was not an authorised by pp nd kennels which was not an authorised by pp nd dismissed appeal.dismissed appeal.

On appeal to High Ct Davies J allowed – (1) Insp On appeal to High Ct Davies J allowed – (1) Insp fell into error in his interpretation of pp and fell into error in his interpretation of pp and treating way Mr W had been using kennel hound treating way Mr W had been using kennel hound lodge and associated run area as “commercial lodge and associated run area as “commercial kennel operation”. His use was entirely within the kennel operation”. His use was entirely within the pp conditions – only him and his own dogs.pp conditions – only him and his own dogs.

TIME LIMITS/IMMUNITYTIME LIMITS/IMMUNITY

R (on the application of Arun DC) v The First R (on the application of Arun DC) v The First Secretary of State and BrownSecretary of State and Brown [2005] EWHC [2005] EWHC 2520, [2006] EWCA Civ 11722520, [2006] EWCA Civ 1172

Enforcement against breach of non-separate use Enforcement against breach of non-separate use conditions-time limitsconditions-time limits

Permission was granted to build an extension to a Permission was granted to build an extension to a property to house a dependent relative. A property to house a dependent relative. A condition attached to the permission said the condition attached to the permission said the property was not be occupied or disposed of as a property was not be occupied or disposed of as a separate independent unit of accommodation. separate independent unit of accommodation. Some time in 1996 the extension was used as Some time in 1996 the extension was used as separate accommodation. The Council issued an separate accommodation. The Council issued an enforcement notice in 2004. enforcement notice in 2004.

Judge Mole QC held:Judge Mole QC held: In 1996 there were effectively two sorts of In 1996 there were effectively two sorts of

breach: (1) non-permitted change of use breach: (1) non-permitted change of use from a single dwelling-house to two from a single dwelling-house to two separate dwelling-houses (2) breach of separate dwelling-houses (2) breach of condition prohibiting change of use to two condition prohibiting change of use to two separate dwelling-houses. separate dwelling-houses.

S. 171 B (2) states S. 171 B (2) states “where there has been “where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in a breach of planning control consisting in the change of use of any building to use as the change of use of any building to use as a single dwellinghouse, no enforcement a single dwellinghouse, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the action may be taken after the end of the period of four years beginning with the period of four years beginning with the date of breach.”date of breach.”

S. 171 B (2) does NOT mean that the time S. 171 B (2) does NOT mean that the time limit for enforcing against a breach of limit for enforcing against a breach of condition against separate use is four condition against separate use is four years. Instead the normal ten-year rule years. Instead the normal ten-year rule applies and EN had been served within applies and EN had been served within time .time .

HOWEVER in the CofA it was held that the HOWEVER in the CofA it was held that the time limit for enforcing against change time limit for enforcing against change ofuse of any building to use as a single ofuse of any building to use as a single dwelling is 4 years whether breach was dwelling is 4 years whether breach was development without permission development without permission or or breach breach of condition.of condition.

In Arun - Carnwath LJ In Arun - Carnwath LJ pointed out that pointed out that clear legislative intention was that, unlike clear legislative intention was that, unlike other changes of use, householders should other changes of use, householders should only be vulnerable to enforcement action only be vulnerable to enforcement action if it was instituted within 4 years. Given if it was instituted within 4 years. Given such intent it would be illogical for there to such intent it would be illogical for there to be a different period depending on how be a different period depending on how breach came about ie breach of condition breach came about ie breach of condition or development without pp.or development without pp.

Similarly – Similarly – illogical for time limit to depend illogical for time limit to depend on how LPA formulated breach.on how LPA formulated breach.

NULLITY & INVALIDITYNULLITY & INVALIDITY

Clive Payne –v-(1) National Assembly for Wales (2) Clive Payne –v-(1) National Assembly for Wales (2) Caerphilly County BC (2006) Caerphilly County BC (2006) [2006] EWHC 597[2007] [2006] EWHC 597[2007] JPL117JPL117

Test to apply Test to apply Inspector had correctly identified that an enforcement Inspector had correctly identified that an enforcement

notice did not comply with S.173(3) because of notice did not comply with S.173(3) because of uncertainty and therefore failed to specify steps. The uncertainty and therefore failed to specify steps. The notice had asked for submission of a scheme to the notice had asked for submission of a scheme to the LPA . Inspector decided to exercise power under S.176 LPA . Inspector decided to exercise power under S.176 to correct and vary.to correct and vary.

Issue of nullity not been taken on appeal to Inspector but Issue of nullity not been taken on appeal to Inspector but on appeal to High Court DDJ Wyn Williams QC held that on appeal to High Court DDJ Wyn Williams QC held that the Inspector having reached the conclusion that the the Inspector having reached the conclusion that the notice did not comply with S.173 fell into legal error by notice did not comply with S.173 fell into legal error by varying its terms. He had no power so to do because varying its terms. He had no power so to do because notice was a nullity.notice was a nullity.

R (on the application of EHDC)-v-First R (on the application of EHDC)-v-First Sof SSof S[2007][2007]EWHC 834.EWHC 834.

Estoppel – “second bite” Enforcement/ Estoppel – “second bite” Enforcement/ nullitynullity

EN/Appeal 1EN/Appeal 1 – developer appealed on – developer appealed on written reps, neither developer nor LA written reps, neither developer nor LA provided sufficient info to determine provided sufficient info to determine whether developmen t compied with pp or whether developmen t compied with pp or not. Appeal 1 allowed on ground (c) – no not. Appeal 1 allowed on ground (c) – no breach.breach.

EN/Appeal2EN/Appeal2 – Inspector allowed – Inspector allowed appeal/quashed notice as nullity on basis appeal/quashed notice as nullity on basis matter had already been determined by 1matter had already been determined by 1stst Insp.Insp.

LA’s subsequent JR was successful. Q was LA’s subsequent JR was successful. Q was whether 1whether 1stst Insp had actually determined Insp had actually determined merits of case when “cause of action merits of case when “cause of action estoppel” would have arisen to prevent 2estoppel” would have arisen to prevent 2ndnd EN having effect. Sullivan J held no EN having effect. Sullivan J held no estoppel arose and that even if it had estoppel arose and that even if it had special circs enabled ct to exercise special circs enabled ct to exercise discretion in favour of applicant.discretion in favour of applicant.

INJUNCTIONS INJUNCTIONS

South Beds DC-v-J. Price [2006]JPL 1805 South Beds DC-v-J. Price [2006]JPL 1805 breach of inj –committal- suspension- gypsies- breach of inj –committal- suspension- gypsies- circ 01/06circ 01/06

LPA had been granted S.187B inj following EN LPA had been granted S.187B inj following EN being upheld requiring Price and others to move being upheld requiring Price and others to move caravans off site, cease resid use and restore caravans off site, cease resid use and restore land. No compliance at all.DC issued commital land. No compliance at all.DC issued commital proceedings – def X-application for inj to be proceedings – def X-application for inj to be discharged or varied.discharged or varied.

In High Ct – Bean J refused to discharge, vary or In High Ct – Bean J refused to discharge, vary or suspend inj despite further S.78 appeal pending. suspend inj despite further S.78 appeal pending. Made commital order suspended for 2 mthsMade commital order suspended for 2 mths

Further application when date for S.78 inquiry 2 Further application when date for S.78 inquiry 2 mths away resulted in suspension for short period mths away resulted in suspension for short period to allow defs to get off site(bef inq date) which to allow defs to get off site(bef inq date) which they did.they did.

BUT inquiry date got set back, was then adjnd BUT inquiry date got set back, was then adjnd sinesine diedie and C01/06 issued. Def appealed against and C01/06 issued. Def appealed against committal order and sought permission to appeal committal order and sought permission to appeal decision not to discharge or suspend.decision not to discharge or suspend.

CofA heldCofA held: 1. Existing shortage of accommodation : 1. Existing shortage of accommodation and likelihood of future sites being identified did and likelihood of future sites being identified did not in themselves tolerating use of site which was not in themselves tolerating use of site which was unsuitable for purpose. No basis on which to unsuitable for purpose. No basis on which to conclude J’s refusal to suspend wrongconclude J’s refusal to suspend wrong

2. C01/06 clearly did improve defs’ planning case 2. C01/06 clearly did improve defs’ planning case – in considering temp pp substantial weight to be – in considering temp pp substantial weight to be accorded unmet need. But not poss to assume accorded unmet need. But not poss to assume more likely to succeed. The q was whether defs more likely to succeed. The q was whether defs should be allowed back on land until decision.should be allowed back on land until decision.

3. Only right to suspend committal pending result 3. Only right to suspend committal pending result if evidence showing substantial likelihood if evidence showing substantial likelihood planning appeal wld succeed. Whilst def’s planning appeal wld succeed. Whilst def’s chances had improved but not poss to say strong.chances had improved but not poss to say strong.

Appeal agnst commital order dismissed and Appeal agnst commital order dismissed and permission to appeal J’s refusal to suspend permission to appeal J’s refusal to suspend refused.refused.

South Cambs DC-v-Dan Flynn [2007]South Cambs DC-v-Dan Flynn [2007] JPL JPL 440;[2006]EWHC 1330 440;[2006]EWHC 1330 “Smithy Fen”- “Smithy Fen”- gypsies- Circ 01/06gypsies- Circ 01/06

LPA sought inj under S.187B to require def LPA sought inj under S.187B to require def gypsies to move. 3 Ens served re different gypsies to move. 3 Ens served re different parts all upheld on appeal.parts all upheld on appeal.

Defs argued against as (1)not Defs argued against as (1)not proportionate and (2)effect of Circ 01/06 proportionate and (2)effect of Circ 01/06 and temp ppand temp pp

Silber J granting application held:Silber J granting application held: (1)(1)Re ProportionalityRe Proportionality – Insp andSofS had – Insp andSofS had

weighed issue of unsatisfied need and weighed issue of unsatisfied need and personal circs, even taking account of 2 personal circs, even taking account of 2 vacant but not approp/available County vacant but not approp/available County Council sites; no failure on DC’s part re Council sites; no failure on DC’s part re homeless applications nothing more could homeless applications nothing more could or should have been done under Housing or should have been done under Housing Act; planning merits were clearly not “finely Act; planning merits were clearly not “finely balanced” as Defs argued;only new legal balanced” as Defs argued;only new legal change to for Court to consider was C01/06; change to for Court to consider was C01/06; land not GB but DC had v strong claim to land not GB but DC had v strong claim to relief unless temp pp justified -C01/06relief unless temp pp justified -C01/06

((2) 2) Re Cir 01/06 +Temp ppRe Cir 01/06 +Temp pp – – defs defs argued that C01/06 means strong chance argued that C01/06 means strong chance of success of getting temp pp.But “real of success of getting temp pp.But “real prospect”of success required not satisfeid prospect”of success required not satisfeid by C01/06 provisions as defs putting by C01/06 provisions as defs putting forward same case in suppport of claim for forward same case in suppport of claim for temp pp as before which was rejected. temp pp as before which was rejected. Nothing in C01/06 alters planning judgmt. Nothing in C01/06 alters planning judgmt. Nothing in C01/06 suggests sites shld be Nothing in C01/06 suggests sites shld be permitted where such level of harm had permitted where such level of harm had been found; prospects of success been found; prospects of success therefore so low ct can disregard.therefore so low ct can disregard.

Bath and North East Somerset Council-v-Bath and North East Somerset Council-v-Connors [2006] EWHC 1595; [2007]Connors [2006] EWHC 1595; [2007]JPL 140 JPL 140 S.187B - S.187B - Gypsies; Injunctions; Enforcement and Gypsies; Injunctions; Enforcement and suspensionsuspension

LPALPA applied for injunctions to restrain existing applied for injunctions to restrain existing and anticipated breaches. and anticipated breaches.

Defendant gypsies had been refused pp for site Defendant gypsies had been refused pp for site and S.78 appeal had been dismissed by Inspector and S.78 appeal had been dismissed by Inspector and Sof S. Their personal circumstances were not and Sof S. Their personal circumstances were not sufficient to outweigh harm to GB and AONB site.sufficient to outweigh harm to GB and AONB site.

Defs applied for temp PP to permit them to Defs applied for temp PP to permit them to remain on site until LPA had carried out needs remain on site until LPA had carried out needs assessment under circ and land could be assessment under circ and land could be identified for them.identified for them.

Defs accepted inj should be granted but Defs accepted inj should be granted but suspended as they had reasonable prospect suspended as they had reasonable prospect of success with fresh application for temp ppof success with fresh application for temp pp

Tugenhadt J granted application:Tugenhadt J granted application: no realistic no realistic prospect of success for application or S.78 prospect of success for application or S.78 appeal( cf appeal( cf South Cambs)South Cambs). Planning circs of . Planning circs of site not going to change by end of temp site not going to change by end of temp permission period.Whilst substantial weight permission period.Whilst substantial weight could be given to unmet need and possibility could be given to unmet need and possibility of further sites being identified for temp pp, of further sites being identified for temp pp, significant weight had already been accorded significant weight had already been accorded previously to same issue by Ins and SofSpreviously to same issue by Ins and SofS

Moreover significant degree of env Moreover significant degree of env damage was principal consideration and damage was principal consideration and that was also unlikely to change.that was also unlikely to change.

BUT suspended order for 4 as opposed to BUT suspended order for 4 as opposed to LPAs suggested 3 months to allow time LPAs suggested 3 months to allow time taking account of personal circs.taking account of personal circs.

J. noted that it remained possible to apply J. noted that it remained possible to apply and extend in future.and extend in future.

PROCEDUREPROCEDURE

Oxford City Council-v-SSCLGOxford City Council-v-SSCLG[2007[2007] ] EWHC 769 – important re way second EWHC 769 – important re way second inspectors address decisions but also for inspectors address decisions but also for procedural point. Where LA taken procedural point. Where LA taken enforcement action and inspector grants enforcement action and inspector grants pp pp andand quashes EN, it is essential on quashes EN, it is essential on appeal to request court quashes both appeal to request court quashes both aspects of decision (S.288 and 289 aspects of decision (S.288 and 289 appeals)appeals)

R on application of Mohammed R on application of Mohammed Eid-v-First SofS [2006Eid-v-First SofS [2006]JPL 1754]JPL 1754

Def appealed agnst Insp’s deicisn Def appealed agnst Insp’s deicisn dismissing EN appeal on basis that dismissing EN appeal on basis that (1) Insp should not have been (1) Insp should not have been permitted to correct typo in his DL permitted to correct typo in his DL and (2) erred in holding change of and (2) erred in holding change of use from financial and professional use from financial and professional services to café was harmful.services to café was harmful.

Held dismissing appeal (1) as long as Held dismissing appeal (1) as long as correction of modest proportion and did correction of modest proportion and did not cause prejudice and (2) purpose of not cause prejudice and (2) purpose of S.289 appeal was to id errors of law made S.289 appeal was to id errors of law made by Insp not to carry out a re-run of original by Insp not to carry out a re-run of original inquiry which is what def was doing – inquiry which is what def was doing – seeking to test findings against the seeking to test findings against the evidence and putting indiv sentences evidence and putting indiv sentences under magnifying glass. Nevertheless under magnifying glass. Nevertheless Insp’s conclusions survived such scrutiny.Insp’s conclusions survived such scrutiny.

CONDITIONSCONDITIONS

Watershore Ltd and Jonathon Bolwes-v-Watershore Ltd and Jonathon Bolwes-v-National Assembly for Wales and National Assembly for Wales and Cardiganshire CC[2006]Cardiganshire CC[2006] JPL 1754-55 JPL 1754-55

EN alleged breach of unauthorised EN alleged breach of unauthorised construction of a building intended for use construction of a building intended for use as a barn requiring it to be demolished.as a barn requiring it to be demolished.

Insp rejected contention under S.174(2) ( c) Insp rejected contention under S.174(2) ( c) that bldg designed for agric purposes and that bldg designed for agric purposes and accordingly permitted devel. Insp amended accordingly permitted devel. Insp amended notice removing words notice removing words “intended for use as “intended for use as a barna barn” and rejected ground (a) and (f) ” and rejected ground (a) and (f) appealsappeals

S.289 appeal dismissedS.289 appeal dismissed- (1)Insp had referred - (1)Insp had referred to S.75(3) which was not relevant as no PP to S.75(3) which was not relevant as no PP to construe but considering under S.177(5) to construe but considering under S.177(5) which, following his amendment of the EN which, following his amendment of the EN was for construction of a building. Ct held was for construction of a building. Ct held probably referring to S.75(3) by way of probably referring to S.75(3) by way of analogy where ppsilent on purpose of analogy where ppsilent on purpose of bldg. In any event Insp would have bldg. In any event Insp would have reached same concl without ref to S.75.reached same concl without ref to S.75.

(2)rejected contention that Insp had (2)rejected contention that Insp had failed to take acc of mc in that he failed to take acc of mc in that he could have imposed a condition re could have imposed a condition re agric use. Having found that the agric use. Having found that the building was not designed for agric building was not designed for agric use it would have been perverse to use it would have been perverse to proceed to impose a condition proceed to impose a condition limiting it to agric use.limiting it to agric use.

EN & COMPLETION NOTICESEN & COMPLETION NOTICES

Carddiff CC-v- National Assembly for Carddiff CC-v- National Assembly for Wales & MalikWales & Malik [2006] EWHC 2391- [2006] EWHC 2391- inter-inter-action between a completion notice and action between a completion notice and an ENan EN

In 1993 Malik obtained consent to erect In 1993 Malik obtained consent to erect garage to rear of home and began work. garage to rear of home and began work. Work ceased 1994. 2001 S.94 completion Work ceased 1994. 2001 S.94 completion notice served but failed to comply by notice served but failed to comply by deadline so EN issue in 2004 alleging deadline so EN issue in 2004 alleging breach and that devel was unsightly.breach and that devel was unsightly.

Mr Malik’s appeal allowed by Assembly Mr Malik’s appeal allowed by Assembly contrary to Insp.contrary to Insp.

LPA’s appeal under S.289 was dismissed. LPA’s appeal under S.289 was dismissed. Davies J found that works carried out prior Davies J found that works carried out prior to expiry of completion notice remained to expiry of completion notice remained development authorised by pp in light of development authorised by pp in light of exception provided by S.95(4) for building exception provided by S.95(4) for building works carried out under relev pp. Works works carried out under relev pp. Works were lawful as had been done under 1993 were lawful as had been done under 1993 consent.consent.

HoweverHowever J went on to point out there J went on to point out there remained significant sanction in loss of remained significant sanction in loss of benefit for future of original consent.benefit for future of original consent.

He also noted that LPA could,in its He also noted that LPA could,in its discretion, issue an EN as to part only of discretion, issue an EN as to part only of devel.devel.

THE END…THE END…