COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON PLANNING ENFORCEMENT - HOUSES AND BARNS

On 29 January the Court of Appeal gave judgement in the matter of Welwyn Hatfield Council v Secretary of State and Mr Alan Beesley [2010] EWCA Civ 26. The decision provides important guidance as to the application of the statutory time limits governing immunity from planning enforcement contained in section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The essential facts of the case were that Mr Beesley sought and obtained planning permission to erect an agricultural barn in the green belt. He subsequently erected a building which, although resembling a barn in outward appearance, was internally equipped as a private dwelling. After 4 years' occupation of the property, Mr Beesley sought a Certificate of Lawfulness in respect of his residential use of the premises. The local planning authority rejected the application, but Mr Beesley appealed the decision to the Secretary of State. At the ensuing public inquiry he was represented by Alexander Booth of Francis Taylor Building, who successfully persuaded the Planning Inspector that Mr Beesley was indeed entitled to the Certificate.

Thereafter, the local authority pursued an appeal in the High Court, where Collins J. found that the Inspector had erred, since it was in fact the '10 year', rather than the ‘4 year' immunity provision which applied. The judge based his view largely on his finding that, since there had been no ‘change of use' of the property to use as a dwellinghouse, section 171B(2) could not apply.

Mr Beesley, who had not taken part in the High Court proceedings, then appealed against the decision of Collins J as did the Secretary of State. Alexander Booth appeared for Mr Beesley in the Court of Appeal, where the Court found unanimously in favour of the Appellants. After noting that one of the stated aims of the relevant provision (section 171B) had been to provide special protection for people's homes, Richards LJ found that section 171B(2) had indeed been engaged on the facts of the case. Further, having cited the decision in First secretary of State v Arun [2007] 1 WLR 523, Richards LJ also observed that the question of whether or not Mr Beesley had intentionally deceived the planning authority when seeking consent for the barn, had no bearing on his entitlement to a Certificate of Lawfulness.