Elizabeth Soilleux v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities
[2023] EWHC 204 (Admin)
Lionel Waterhouse & Anor v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor
17 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2628 (Admin)
High Court
A couple appealed a planning decision because they claimed to have lived in a container for four years to avoid planning rules. They didn't have enough proof, so the judge dismissed their appeal and said they had to pay the other side's legal costs.
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.
Similar Cases
Bryan Rogers v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2528 (Admin)
Pyrosome Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 563 (Admin)
Esther Gurvits & Anor v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 490 (Admin)
Jonathan Armstrong, R (on the application of) v Ashford Borough Council
[2023] EWHC 317 (Admin)