Paton vs Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

Background

The High Court recently delivered a judgment in the case of Susan Paton and Kenneth Paton against the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, concerning an appeal against a planning enforcement notice. The case, heard by Mrs Justice Lang, revolved around a disputed enforcement notice issued by Maldon District Council regarding an alleged unauthorised residential development on land in Mayland, Essex.

The Enforcement Notice

The enforcement notice, issued on 29 June 2023, identified a breach of planning control, specifically the unauthorised erection of a C3 residential dwelling house. The notice required the removal of the dwelling house within three months to prevent it from becoming lawful after four years, as per section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Grounds of Appeal

The Patons appealed under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, arguing that the Inspector erred in dismissing their appeal under ground (b) of section 174(2) TCPA 1990. They claimed that the alleged breach of planning control had not occurred, as the building had never been used as a residential property.

Inspector's Findings

The Inspector, after an inquiry and site visit, upheld the enforcement notice. He found that a C3 residential dwelling house had been erected, not the apple storage barn for which planning permission was granted. The building's completion in June 2021 and the absence of residential use were acknowledged, but the Inspector concluded that the breach was operational development, not unauthorised use.

High Court Judgment

Mrs Justice Lang dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Inspector's interpretation. She emphasised that ground (b) requires demonstrating that the breach did not occur at all, not merely that it was not ongoing at the time of enforcement. The statutory language and purpose of the enforcement regime supported this interpretation.

Statutory Interpretation

The judgment highlighted the importance of the statutory context, noting that section 172(1)(a) TCPA 1990 allows for enforcement notices where a breach has occurred, not necessarily ongoing. The statutory framework aims to remedy breaches of planning control, allowing for restoration of the land to its pre-breach condition.

Implications for Planning Law

This decision underscores the remedial nature of planning enforcement and the importance of addressing breaches even if they are not ongoing. It clarifies the interpretation of ground (b) in section 174(2) TCPA 1990, reinforcing the ability of local authorities to enforce against historical breaches within statutory time limits.

Conclusion

The High Court's ruling in this case reaffirms the principles guiding planning enforcement and the interpretation of statutory provisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It serves as a reminder of the importance of compliance with planning permissions and the potential consequences of unauthorised developments.

Learn More

For more information on housing law, see BeCivil's guide to UK Housing Law.