Ian Caldwell & Anor v The Secretary of State for Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2053 (Admin)
Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities v Ian Nivison Caldwell & Anor
2 May 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 467
Court of Appeal
Someone built a house without permission, changing the land's use. The government tried to force demolition, but the court ruled that the house building was the main cause of the land's illegal change of use, and because it was built more than four years ago, it can't be demolished even though the land use is still illegal.
Key Facts
- •An enforcement notice was issued against Ian Caldwell and Timberstore Ltd. for the unlawful residential use of land and construction of a bungalow ('The Goose House') without planning permission.
- •The notice required cessation of residential use and demolition of the bungalow.
- •The inspector dismissed Caldwell's appeal, upholding the enforcement notice.
- •Lieven J. quashed the inspector's decision.
- •The Secretary of State appealed Lieven J.'s decision to the Court of Appeal.
Legal Principles
Murfitt principle: An enforcement notice for an unauthorised material change of use can require removal of operational development integral to or part and parcel of the unauthorised use, even if that development is otherwise immune from enforcement due to time limits.
Murfitt v Secretary of State for the Environment [1980] 40 P. & C.R. 254
Section 171B of the 1990 Act sets different time limits for enforcement against operational development (4 years) and material changes of use (10 years).
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Section 173(4)(a) of the 1990 Act allows enforcement notices to require steps to remedy a breach by restoring the land to its condition before the breach.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
The Murfitt principle is limited; it cannot override the statutory scheme's time limits or extend enforcement to operational development fundamental to or causative of the change of use.
This case's interpretation of existing case law
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Secretary of State's appeal.
The inspector misdirected himself on the Murfitt principle by failing to recognise its limitations within the statutory scheme. The construction of the bungalow was deemed fundamental to the change of use, not merely ancillary, and thus outside the scope of the Murfitt principle given the four-year time limit for operational development had already passed.
Similar Cases
Barry Devine v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2023] EWCA Civ 601
Save Britain’s Heritage, R (on the application of) v Herefordshire Council
[2023] EWCA Civ 723
Glenn Kinnersley, R (on the application of) v Maidstone Borough Council
[2023] EWCA Civ 172
Hilary Jones v Isle of Anglesey County Council
[2024] EWHC 2582 (Admin)