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.