Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring, R (on the application of) v The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
[2024] EWHC 440 (Admin)
Hilary Jones v Isle of Anglesey County Council
11 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2582 (Admin)
High Court
Someone challenged a council's decision to allow building work on a historical site. The argument was that the building work permit expired because a specific change to the site hadn't been done in time. The judge decided that the council was correct – the necessary changes were made despite delays due to the pandemic and a separate building permit hadn't expired, so the building work could continue.
Key Facts
- •Hilary Jones challenged Isle of Anglesey County Council's decisions approving matters under a section 106 agreement related to the Penrhos Estate development.
- •The challenge centered on whether planning permission had expired due to non-compliance with condition 70 (change of use of Bailiff's Tower within 5 years).
- •The key question was whether sufficient steps had been taken to constitute a 'change of use' of the Bailiff's Tower, considering the impact of Covid-19 restrictions.
- •The planning permission was hybrid (outline and full), and the claimant argued that the full permission's expiry invalidated the entire permission.
Legal Principles
In determining a change of use, consider the building's physical state, actual use, intended use, and attempted use; actual use is not a legal prerequisite.
Impey v Secretary of State for the Environment (1980) 47 P&CR 157; Welwyn Hatfield Council v SSCLG [2011] UKSC 15
For commencement of development, only a 'material operation' is required, and the developer's intention to complete the development is irrelevant.
Malvern Hills District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1983) 46 P&CR 58; Riordan Communications Ltd v South Buckingham District Council [2000] 1 PLR 45
Planning permission interpretation starts with the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in context and in light of common sense.
Patel v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] EWHC 2115 (Admin); Lambeth London Borough Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2019] UKSC 33
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The court found that the council's decision was lawful. Sufficient steps had been taken to constitute a change of use of the Bailiff's Tower, even considering the Covid-19 restrictions preventing actual use. The outline and full planning permissions were not necessarily interdependent; the full permission's expiry didn't invalidate the outline permission.
Similar Cases
Greenfields (IOW) Limited, R (on the application of) v Isle of Wight Council
[2024] EWHC 2107 (Admin)
Elizabeth Soilleux v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities
[2023] EWHC 204 (Admin)
Timothy James House & Anor v Waverley Borough Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3011 (Admin)
Barbara Atwill, R (on the application of) v New Forest National Park Authority
[2023] EWHC 625 (Admin)