‘In the recent case of T&P Real Estate Limited v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Sutton  EWHC 879 (Ch) Deputy Master Bowles described the background to the claim, and the application before him, as “…for a non-planner, not wholly straightforward”. In fairness, even for a planner, the subject matter of the claim is not uncomplicated involving as it did consideration of the interpretation, and effect of, an Article 4 Direction made in relation to the exercise of permitted development rights.’
No. 5 Chambers, 24th April 2020
‘The provisions in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 which permit changes of use from office to residential have been controversial, particularly in parts of the south of England where many local authorities fear the effects upon the supply of office accommodation in their areas. As a result, a number of authorities have exercised the powers in Article 4 of the Order to withdraw the rights from parts of their areas. A recent case in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) illustrates the issues involved where a Council adopts a different approach by attempting to rely on its rights as landlord to enforce leasehold restrictive covenants to prevent the implementation of a change of use proposal.’
Exchange Chambers, 12th February 2020
‘A developer sought planning permission for a development on Green Belt land comprising nine residential houses and a barn and associated dwellings for a livery business. The proposal involved redevelopment of previously developed land at a livery, the business of which was partly retained. The local planning authority refused planning permission. On the developer’s appeal, an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State considered that the proposal comprising new buildings was appropriate development and concluded that, applying the requirements of the sixth exception in para 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”), the new buildings would not impact adversely either on the openness of the Green Belt or the purposes for designation of the Green Belt. He accordingly allowed the developer’s appeal. The local planning authority applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the inspector’s decision, contending, inter alia, that para 89, which listed six exceptions to the general policy that new buildings were inappropriate development in the Green Belt, should be interpreted to mean that development which was not only operational development for new buildings but also involved a material change in use for those buildings did not fall within the categories of appropriate development, and that therefore the inspector had erred in law in treating the proposal as appropriate development, since the construction of the new houses also involved a material change of use to residential or mixed residential and equestrian use.’
WLR Daily, 15th February 2016
‘Coll (Listing Officer) v Mooney  EWHC 485 (Admin) is a statutory appeal by the Appellant Listing Officer against the decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England (“VTE”) in which it ordered the Listing Officer to alter the valuation list to show one entry for a property, instead of two. The property was built as one dwelling, on three floors. However, at some point, the property was converted into two dwellings. It was listed as two separate units of property (hereditaments) when the valuation list for council tax was drawn up in 1993.’
Local Government Law, 22nd March 2016
‘The time limits for enforcement action in respect of breaches of planning control prescribed by section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 did not apply where there had been positive deception designed to avoid enforcement action within those time limits. The position had not been affected by the enactment of sections 171BA to 171BC into the 1990 Act, which enabled a local planning authority, in a case of deliberate concealment, to apply to the magistrates’ court for a planning enforcement order (“PEO”) permitting enforcement action outside the time limits in section 171B.’
WLR Daily, 8th December 2015
‘In determining an application for a certificate for lawful use, section 191(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 entitled a local planning authority, in principle, to substitute a description of a different use from that described in the application form by the certificate had been sought, provided that the authority was satisfied, on a balance of probability, that the evidence demonstrated that the use as substituted had been carried on continuously for a period of ten years or more.’
WLR Daily 6th February 2014
“A material change of use of Green Belt land was capable of falling within the scope of paragraph 81 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’), but would not by definition be appropriate development as a result. Rather, such a change of use would be a material consideration in determining whether there existed very special reasons for permitting otherwise inappropriate development falling outwith the terms of paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF.”
WLR Daily, 26th October 2013
“Where planning permission had been granted for the erection of a building for storing agricultural products but the building after erection had been used only as a single dwellinghouse, there had been a change of use of the building to that of a dwellinghouse for the purposes of s 171B(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and accordingly no enforcement action could be taken after the expiry of a 4–year period.”
WLR Daily, 2nd February 2010
Court of Appeal
“Where full planning permission had been granted for the construction of buildings, the grant approved the application plans and drawings unless the permission expressly stated otherwise. The general rule in construing permissions to have regard only to the permission unless the ancillary plans and drawings had been expressly incorporated, applied only to outline planning permission.”
The Times, 30th March 2009
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“The general rule in construing planning permission which was clear and unambiguous, to have regard only to the permission unless the planning application had been expressly incorporated, applied to outline planning permission. Where full planning permission was granted for the construction of buildings, the grant approved the application plans and drawings unless the grant expressly stated otherwise.”
WLR Daily, 24th March 2009
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“When planning permission was granted for a change of use, a condition could be imposed which would have the effect of regulating the permission in order to control any future expansion of the use by way of intensification, and only if such a condition allowed intensification to the extent of there being a material change of use would it be unlawful; nor did the use of the term ‘static’ caravan render a condition void for uncertainty or contrary to the Secretary of State’s policy.
WLR Daily, 23rd March 2009
Please note once a case has been fully reported in once of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.