High court dismisses appeal against planning enforcement notice

Introduction

The High Court has dismissed an appeal by Mr John Ward against an enforcement notice issued by Hertsmere Borough Council, which alleged a material change of use of land in Hertfordshire. The case, heard by Deputy High Court Judge Karen Ridge, revolved around the land's use as a construction contractor's depot, which was deemed unauthorised.

Background

The land in question, adjacent to Romani Street, South Mimms, has a complex planning history dating back to 1962. The enforcement notice, issued on 27 October 2023, followed a previous appeal and public inquiry process that resulted in a revised notice. The appeal was made under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Events Leading to the Appeal

The appellant contested the enforcement notice on multiple grounds, arguing that planning permission should be granted, no breach of planning control had occurred, and the compliance period was too short. The appeal was heard by public inquiry, with evidence including statutory declarations, witness statements, and photographic evidence.

The Inspector's Decision

The Inspector's Decision Letter, dated 8 August 2024, concluded that the land's use had changed over the years, with periods of storage and distribution, and a temporary use as a contractor's depot. The Inspector found that the site was in nil use at the time Mr Ward took over, and the current use did not attract immunity from enforcement action.

Legal Framework

The appeal was assessed under CPR rule 52.6, with the burden on the appellant to demonstrate the lawfulness of the land use. The appellant cited the case of Gabbitas v SSE and Newham LBC to challenge the Inspector's treatment of evidence, arguing that unchallenged evidence was disregarded without good reason.

Inspector's Consideration of Evidence

The Inspector's detailed analysis of evidence was deemed thorough, with clear reasons provided for accepting or rejecting evidence. The Inspector considered the historical use of the land, witness testimonies, and photographic evidence, ultimately concluding that the land's use had been abandoned for a significant period.

Abandonment and Legal Tests

The Inspector applied the legal tests for abandonment, concluding that a reasonable person would consider the land's use abandoned. The appellant's challenge to the Inspector's conclusions was found to lack realistic prospects of success, with the Inspector's decision based on sound legal principles.

Conclusion

The High Court refused permission to appeal on all grounds, upholding the enforcement notice. The decision underscores the importance of thorough evidence evaluation and adherence to legal standards in planning enforcement cases.

Learn More

For more information on contractor law, see BeCivil's guide to Contractor Law.