“(a) that, in respect of any breach of planning control which may be constituted by the matters stated in the notice, planning permission ought to be granted …; (b) that those matters have not occurred; … (d) that, at the date when the notice was issued, no enforcement action could be taken in respect of any breach of planning control which may be constituted by those matters. … (f) that the steps required by the notice to be taken, or the activities required by the notice to cease, exceed what is necessary to remedy any breach of planning control which may be constituted by those matters or, as the case may be, to remedy any injury to amenity which has been caused by any such breach.”
“… the Council confirmed that the actual and intended scope of the first enforcement notice had been against engineering contractors’ depot use, and not against any other uses at Honeycrock Farm. Your client stated that this use had ceased….”
“Without planning permission, change of use of the land to a mixed use for Class B1, B2 and B8 uses, agriculture, hay and straw dealing, haulage depot and building and demolition contractor’s depot.”
“88. … What had been basically a 'Dutch barn' with open ends and some corrugated sheeting on the two side elevations of a plain steel framework was turned into a purpose built industrial type building (despite the corrugated cladding on the outside which can also be found on a modern agricultural building) with block work walls and partitions, including some first floor sections, and much of it with a proper concrete floor. 89. The changes in the type of space offered for rent after the 1998 alterations, in my view, facilitated a change in the type of use there. It changed from a basically 'open' covered area under the roof of units 9 and 10, used for the storage of vehicles and other items which could be stored outside just as easily as inside, plus some industrial type activities including repairs to large vehicles, to one that provided secure, weatherproof storage on a large scale that would not have been possible in the old units 9 and 10. 90. Further, it has resulted in the occupation by 2 companies specialising in the delivery of parcels which have more vehicles and staff on site than most and the establishment of a company providing the equipment for and running corporate games events which also has many staff and vehicles on site …. It was not disputed that these three occupiers had a higher generation of traffic to and from the site than others nor was the answer … that there had been more than a doubling of traffic movements at the site in the three years 1999 to 2002 …. This has also resulted, in my view, in a materially different character of use at the site….”
“94. In my view, there were fundamental changes at the appeal site between March 1991 and March 2001. These were the increase in the land area covered by the use; the increase in building mass and, therefore, the consequent increase in the amount of usable covered floor space; the large increase in the area of outside storage; the virtual rebuilding of units 9 and 10 almost as purpose built commercial buildings; the nature of the more recent occupiers of the site, in particular, of the buildings, and also the level of traffic associated with the various uses and occupiers of the site particularly the more recent tenants.”
“99. Whilst I accept that it might not be possible to say that any one of these changes by itself resulted in the material change in the use of the site, I consider, as a matter of fact and degree, that the use at7 March 2001 was materially different to that which had existed on7 March 1991 . It was not just a more intensive use of the site but one where the activities making up the uses, the land area used; the extent of storage, both inside and outside; the buildings in which the uses were being undertaken and the level of traffic generated, if all taken together, describe a use that is materially different in character and nature. 100. I conclude, on the basis of the evidence that was put before me, that those changes were so significant that the mixed use there at the time the Notice was issued had, by its very different nature and character, come about through a material change of use from the use which had been there on7 March 1991 .”
“(11) Where - (a) an enforcement notice in respect of any breach of planning control could have required any buildings or works to be removed or any activity to cease, but does not do so; and (b) all the requirements of the notice have been complied with, then, so far as the notice did not so require, planning permission shall be treated as having been granted by virtue of section 73A in respect of development consisting of the construction of the buildings or works or, as the case may be, the carrying out of the activities.”
"Without planning permission, change of use of the said land from use for agriculture to a mixed use for agriculture and an engineering contractors' depot involving the storage of plant, equipment, materials, vehicles, portable buildings and machinery"
"(i) Cease the use of the land for an engineering contractors' depot. … (ii) Remove from the land all plant, equipment, materials, vehicles, portable buildings and machinery used or stored in connection with the use of the land as an engineering contractors' depot …."
“… The enforcement notice manifestly did not allege that construction of the culvert had been carried out in breach of planning control. In those circumstances the enforcement notice could not have required the removal of the culvert. In those circumstances section 173(11) is not in play and there is no question of any deemed planning permission for the culvert …”