Lionel Waterhouse & Anor v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2628 (Admin)
Esther Gurvits & Anor v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
6 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 490 (Admin)
High Court
The Gurvits family used an outbuilding as a large office, but didn't have permission. A judge decided the enforcement notice requiring them to stop was correct. The judge explained that while the building itself was legal, turning it into a big office was not, and the requirements to remove the kitchen and bathrooms were justified because those were part of the illegal office. The judge also explained that even if parts of the building were once used for acceptable reasons, the overall change in use was important.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against enforcement notice relating to the use of an outbuilding at 46, 48, and 50 Hurstwood Road, London.
- •Outbuilding comprised three linked sections, built in stages, used as an office and storage.
- •Enforcement notice alleged material change of use without planning permission.
- •Appellants argued the use was incidental to the dwellinghouses and/or existed for over 10 years.
- •Inspector dismissed appeals, upholding the enforcement notice with minor variations.
- •Appeal to High Court on points of law.
Legal Principles
Material change of use under section 55(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Permitted development rights under Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015
Enforcement of planning control under Part 7 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Mansi principle: Enforcement notices should not abrogate existing lawful or permitted use rights.
Mansi v Elstree Rural District Council (1965)
Judicial review grounds: excess of power, irrationality, and procedural irregularity.
E v Secretary for State for the Home Department [2004]
Planning unit: determining the appropriate unit for assessing material change of use.
Burdle v Secretary of State for the Environment [1972], R(Ocado Retail Limited) v London Borough of Islington [2021]
Intensification of existing use can constitute material change of use.
Hertfordshire County Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2012]
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Inspector's decision was supported by the evidence and did not err in law. The court found the Inspector’s findings were reasonable and based on the evidence presented, including the appellant's oral testimony. The Mansi principle was not breached.
Ground 1 (Inspector's failure to consider material considerations) failed.
The Inspector considered all the evidence, including the appellant's oral testimony, which provided a more complete picture than her written statement. The Inspector's findings accurately reflected the evidence.
Ground 2 (Inspector's consideration of immaterial considerations) failed.
The Inspector's consideration of the Class E permitted development right was relevant to determining whether the change of use was material. Even if an error had been made, it would not have altered the outcome.
Ground 4 (unlawful amendment to the Notice) failed.
The enforcement notice, while requiring removal of kitchen and toilet facilities, did not breach the Mansi principle. Future lawful use under section 55(2)(d) would not be affected, as the notice would be interpreted to preserve those rights.
Similar Cases
Macintosh Village (Management) Limited, R (on the application of) v Manchester City Council
[2022] EWHC 3002 (Admin)
Ian Caldwell & Anor v The Secretary of State for Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2053 (Admin)
Nasir Kazalbash v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWCA Civ 904
Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor
[2023] EWCA Civ 727