Key Facts
- •Appeal against planning inspector's decision (22.1.24) concerning two enforcement notices for change of use of a forestry container to residential use.
- •Appellants (Mr and Mrs Waterhouse) claimed statutory immunity from enforcement due to a four-year period of continuous use as a dwelling since December 2017.
- •Appellants argued procedural unfairness due to the written representations procedure, insufficient evidence, and errors of law by the inspector.
- •Appellants' evidence consisted of emails from neighbours and a lack of photographic evidence.
- •Inspector rejected the appeal due to insufficient evidence to prove continuous residential use for four years.
- •Appeal was filed 18 days late.
Legal Principles
Onus of proof in establishing statutory immunity falls on the appellant; the breach must be active and continuous; parties must place before the inspector all material evidence; the inspector decides based on the materials before them; reasons given must leave no room for genuine doubt.
Ravensdale Ltd v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 2374 (Admin)
Exceptional cases may require an inspector to request further information or hold an oral hearing for fairness.
West v First Secretary of State [2005] EWHC 729 (Admin)
In a challenge based on procedural unfairness, the claimant must show real unfairness causing substantial prejudice.
West v First Secretary of State [2005] EWHC 729 (Admin)
The four-year period for immunity can end anytime before the enforcement notice.
R (Ocado) v Islington LBC [2021] EWHC 1509 (Admin)
An inspector decides the case on evidence before them, and there is no duty to explain what evidence would have satisfied them.
Ravensdale Ltd v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 2374 (Admin)
Legally adequate reasons must leave no genuine doubt as to what was decided and why.
Mahajan v SSTLGR (2002) JPL 928
Denton principles apply to extensions of time for appeals.
R (Ibrar) v Dacorum BC [2022] EWHC 3425 (Admin)
Outcomes
Application for leave to appeal refused.
No arguable grounds of appeal; insufficient evidence to support the claim of continuous residential use for four years; late filing of appeal.
Application for extension of time refused.
No viable ground of appeal; material mistake by appellants regarding deadline; strong public interest in promptness of enforcement appeals.
Appellants to pay respondents' costs up to the Aarhus cap of £10,000 (£7,500 to the Secretary of State and £2,500 to the LPA).
Respondents' successful defence; foreseeable participation of respondents; material assistance of advocates; overall justice.