“Without planning permission: 1. The construction and erection of a new dwelling and creation of hard standing, on the land hatched in blue on the attached plan. 2. The construction and erection of a boundary wall, exceeding two metres in height, shown edged yellow on the attached plan. 3. [T]he material change in the use of the land from agricultural land to a residential garden, shown hatched in green on the attached plan”
“ (i) Demolish the dwelling/hard standing and remove all materials used in their construction from the land. (ii) Demolish the boundary wall and remove all materials used in their construction from the land. (iii) Cease using the land (shown hatched in green) as a residential garden. (iv) Cease mowing the land (shown hatched in green) as residential garden. (v) Remove all residential items and paraphernalia from the land.” (i) Demolish the dwelling/hard standing and remove all materials used in their construction from the land. (ii) Demolish the boundary wall and remove all materials used in their construction from the land. (iii) Cease using the land (shown hatched in green) as a residential garden. (iv) Cease mowing the land (shown hatched in green) as residential garden. (v) Remove all residential items and paraphernalia from the land.”
“Without planning permission: 1. The construction and erection of a new dwelling and creation of hard standing, on the land hatched in blue on the attached plan. 2. [T]he material change in the use of the land from agricultural land to a residential garden, shown hatched in green on the attached plan”
“ (i) Demolish the dwelling/hard standing and remove all materials used in their construction from the land. (ii) Cease using the land (shown hatched in green) as a residential garden. (iii) Cease mowing the land (shown hatched in green) as a residential garden. (iv) Remove all residential items and paraphernalia from the land.” (i) Demolish the dwelling/hard standing and remove all materials used in their construction from the land. (ii) Cease using the land (shown hatched in green) as a residential garden. (iii) Cease mowing the land (shown hatched in green) as a residential garden. (iv) Remove all residential items and paraphernalia from the land.”
“6. … The single-storey building from which the terrace has been formed dates back to the 1930s. An approval given by the then local Council in 1935 was for the “re-building of a laboratory building” and the plans for that approval formed part of the evidence before me. In the 1960s, it was converted to provide three flats. In the 1980s, in the flat corresponding to the dwelling now known as “Woodside”, the roof space was converted to provide rooms at first floor level. 7. The notices follow unauthorised building operations of which the Council first became aware in 2007. Threefields and its attendant land and outbuildings were sold in lots in 2006. The building was described in the sales particulars as “the cottages”
“A final issue arose under “Ground (g)” of the notices of appeal, that if the notices were upheld, further time should reasonably be allowed for the steps required by the notices to take place; the demolition of the buildings. I argued that the period of one year provided in the notice was insufficient bearing in mind that 5 households would have to find alternative housing. The Appellants who were owners/occupiers were unaware that the properties in which they were acquiring interests did not have the benefit of planning permission. Each such Appellant had taken legal advice in the usual way in acquiring their interests and had solicitors to undertake the necessary searches and conveyancing. In order to acquire new properties in which to live, the owner/occupier appellants would need to seek redress for deficiencies in conveyancing procedures which had allowed them to acquire interests in houses which did not benefit from planning permission. This argument is set out in my appeal statement which was exchanged with the Council and delivered to the Inspector in advance in accordance with the hearing procedure rules.”
“In preparation for the hearing, procedural matters were agreed with the Council to facilitate the hearing. Mr Staincliffe at the Inquiry [sic] confirmed that it had been previously agreed that the attendance of the Appellants in person would serve no useful purpose and lead only to increased stress for the families concerned. Their attendance would also be likely to disrupt or lengthen the proceedings, for which only two days had been allocated. Their attendance might also compromise discussions on the planning merit of the appeals between the parties. As a result, the hearing was able to be held in a small meeting room. This confirmation was given when the Inspector commented on the absence of the Appellants.”
“… b) I was also asked what knowledge I had of the planning history of the property that I was going to purchase. I told [the Inspector] that I had no real information. I confirmed that I was relying upon my solicitors to make all necessary investigations into the purchase. The position as I recall was that I was given a Contract by Thorne Barton, which I think had been prepared by Mr Turner, to sign, so that they were able to use this to satisfy the Bank that contracts were in place for further funding to complete the development. This was some time before the final completion, which was in 2007. I am not sure that I spoke to Mr Turner at this point. Subsequently, however, I recall speaking with Mr Turner when he was with Hilliers and asking him to ensure that all planning matters were correct and whether there was any reason why the transaction could not proceed. As can be seen from the bill, which is exhibited under ‘CGP1’, there is a charge made for a Local Authority Search. I was expecting Mr Turner, who I have known for a number of years and used on a number of occasions, to make the necessary investigations and to inform me if there was any difficulty. He did not do so, and I therefore proceeded to complete the purchase on the understanding that planning issues did not exist. I would also mention that I told the Inspector that I had bought a number of properties from Thorne Barton over a period of years. I first got to know Mr MacGregor a director of Thorn[e] Barton when I was running a café in Berkhamsted some 15 years ago, and indeed we bought our first property through him. Since that time we have probably bought properties through Thorne Barton some four or five times, on each occasion without any difficulty and I had therefore the utmost faith in him and in the company.”
“10. When the inspector asked about the relationship between the owners and tenants with the developer of the land, Thorne Barton Estates Limited, both Mr Staincliffe and I merely confirmed … the personal business connections as agreed matters of fact. 11. Of the 5 occupiers of the houses each had some connection with the owner/developer TBE. … 12. The Inspector asked if … Mr Pitblado could attend because he seemed to find it difficult to understand why as a site manager for Thorn[e] Barton Estates Mr Pitblado was unaware of the lack of planning permission and building regulations approval. It was therefore arranged for him to be present at the site visit. 13. I do not recall any submissions made or arguments put on behalf of the Council, that owners or tenants of the buildings had acquired their interests from … the developers in the knowledge that there was no planning permission. I would have been surprised if such allegations had been raised as this question had not been raised before between the parties and it would have been a somewhat startling suggestion. It was an issue which solely originated with the Inspector and I was surprised to see that he had made findings on the point in the Appeal Decision at paragraph [37]. 14. Following the hearing at the Council’s offices, I again met with the Inspector on site together with Mr Staincliffe and Mr Pitblado for the site visit. The Inspector spoke with Mr Pitblado. In addition to responding to some factual questions on internal layout, I recall Mr Pitblado informing the Inspector that whilst he had rented the neighbouring “Old House” from Thorn[e] Barton Estates during the course of the building works on the terrace he was never employed on this development but was busy site managing a different project elsewhere. Mr Pitblado then produced an invoice from the solicitors who acted for him in the purchase of his house, No.1, which showed he had been billed for a local authority search fee.”
“9. The substance of the Applicants’ joint case on this ground, as it was put to me by the agent who represented them, Mr King, was (and I paraphrase) that they were innocent home-owners caught up in a planning issue which was not of their own making and that the period for compliance with the requirements should be extended to allow them to pursue litigation against solicitors who had carried out the conveyancing process in connection with their purchase of the properties. 10. In the agenda for the hearing which I circulated before opening, I raised, under Item 6 (headed “Ground (g) appeal”) two bullet points for discussion: (1) the position on the occupiers’ litigation; (2) the relevance of the litigation to the period for compliance. 11. My notes of the discussion record that, under this heading, Mr Staincliffe of the [Council] raised a query as to whether those who occupied the dwellings had had some involvement in the unauthorised works. [The Council] also queried whether any of them worked for [Thorne] Barton, the developers who carried out the unauthorised works. It sought from Mr King details as to the circumstances of searches carried out. It wondered whether they were “family and/or friends” of the developers. It was suggested that Mr Pitblado had some involvement in the works. 12. By way of digression, Mr Pitblado did have detailed knowledge of the works carried out because his evidence at the two site visits which took place as to how the middle three dwellings had been constructed was key to the appellants’ success on the ground (b) appeals and the quashing of the notices relating to them. 13. I asked the Applicants’ representative, Mr King, what the position was regarding litigation. My notes record that he responded that “DT” (my shorthand) was acting for the purchasers against the solicitors who carried out the conveyancing – that much was known. I cannot now recall who “DT” refers to but this may not be material. The Council went on to say that it sought information regarding search enquiries on the properties prior to its investigations in relation to enforcement action. It knew that solicitors for [Thorne] Barton also acted for Mr Pitblado. No searches were recorded under his name – there was evidence of two other searches. 14. The Council expressed surprise that, although it highlighted to occupiers the possibility of enforcement action leading on from its investigations in correspondence with them, no queries in relation to this were raised by any of them. When all these matters were put to Mr King, he responded that he could only surmise that the conveyancing process might have been rushed – it was the height of the boom in the property market at the time. 15. In the course of these discussions, the Council expressed surprise that none of the occupiers had attended the hearing. I expressed surprise also. This is at odds with the statement … that Mr King had agreed their non-attendance in advance with Mr Staincliffe, for all that he might have explained to him how the arrangements had been agreed in advance with the occupiers. Mr King did say at the hearing, as I recall, that he had had the Applicants’ agreement that he would represent them at the hearing, as well as the developers, but that is not the same as saying … that an “agreement on procedure” with the [Council] was explained to me. The … suggestion … that the connection of the occupiers to the developers was made clear to me as background information is also at odds with what occurred. No mention of it was made in any statement in advance of the hearing – it emerged as a result of discussions at the hearing which originated from concerns expressed by the [Council].”
“17. … In conducting the visit, I was, as is normal in such visits where they are carried out in connection with a hearing, able to leave the hearing open and hear evidence. Though Mr Pitblado was in attendance to help with the details as to the process of construction of the dwellings, at Mr King’s instigation, he gave some evidence as to his own involvement as a purchaser of one of them. 18. My notes of the visit record that Mr Pitblado said that he did not project-manage the works but was aware of them, as he was living at the time in “Threefields”, the main dwelling on the original estate. He said that he purchased Gable End through [Thorne] Barton in May 2007 and that the other properties were sold through “word of mouth”
“22. I do recall that I informed the … Inspector that the whole situation was not as simple as made out by Mr King and went on to explain the facts recently established by the Council. These facts were: 1. The properties were not offered for sale on the open market. 2. The link established between most of the owners of the properties and the developer, Thorne Barton Estates. 3. The properties did not have building regulations approval. 23. The above points were confirmed by Mr King. 24. I expressed my surprise that all owners and occupiers, who faced the real danger of losing their homes, were using the same planning consultant as Thorne Barton Estates and chose not to attend the hearing. I directed the … Inspector to … the Planning Contravention Notices sent with the Appeal Questionnaire … . I expressed my opinion that the above indicated that Thorne Barton Estates and Mr King had full knowledge of the Council’s enforcement investigation. I also expressed my opinion that the owners and occupiers must have known that they did not have planning permission for the works taking place. 25. I mentioned that if this was my property I would have difficulty not holding Thorne Barton Estates partly responsible for the situation and would therefore want to be represented by someone with no affiliation to Thorne Barton Estates. Four of the current occupiers gave no evidence so it was not possible to get a response to this statement. However, I did push the point that [in] the absence of any evidence to say otherwise it was my opinion, on the balance of probabilities, the owners must have been aware or partly aware of the risk in purchasing or living in these properties. I also stated that it was a possibility that the other owners did not attend to avoid such questions. 26. I recall that the … Inspector invited Mr King to make comment and provided him with an opportunity to respond to the points made by me. Paragraph 11 of [Mr King’s witness statement of2 December 2010 ] would appear to be an accurate account.”
“I had not previously realised the significance of this. Whilst the Inspector, Mr King and the planning officers were gathered around my kitchen table considering plans, I searched through a drawer and found the invoice attached as exhibit CP-6. I passed the invoice to Mr King who appeared delighted to be able to confirm to the Inspector that such a search had in fact been carried out. Mr King drew the Inspector’s attention to the invoice and I have no doubt that the Inspector saw it. The Inspector kept his head down and made notes, which I assumed were related to the production of the invoice. Because I had not intended to be present at the hearing and because I did not expect my knowledge of planning issues to be relevant, it had not occurred to me to make copies of the invoice. Since I only had the original in my possession, I retained the invoice but I did not consider this to be a problem because I thought that the Inspector had made his own notes. I am very surprised to read that the Inspector does not recall the invoice having been produced at all … and that it is absent from the list of documents. I can only assume that this is because no copies were available. Given that no duplicates were available, it is understandable for Mr Staincliffe to state … that he “does not recall [me] providing a copy of an invoice” since I was unable to do so. However, I would have ensured that copies were provided to the Inspector and Mr Staincliffe as a matter of urgency had I realised that the invoice would otherwise have been ignored.”
“… The Inspector appeared satisfied that Mr Pitblado should attend the Site visit, rather than the formal session. Once all attendees had arrived at Gable End, Mr Pitblado exposed the brickwork inside his kitchen during that session so that the Inspector and or the Council could satisfy themselves that the brickwork was original. It was during this Site visit that the Inspector asked Mr Pitblado about his involvement in the construction of the Site and his knowledge of the planning position prior to his purchase of Gable End. I find it curious that Mr Staincliffe should state (at paragraph 18 of his statement) that he and I were “provided with an opportunity to ask Mr Pitblado questions”
“… Had I known that the ground (g) [appeal] was to be contested on the grounds of complicity (and had Mr Pitblado found the document prior to the hearing) it would have been formally submitted as evidence beforehand. However, I had already given evidence to the effect that Mr Pitblado had instructed conveyancing solicitors, who had apparently carried out local authority searches; this was set out at paragraph 3.1 of my appeal statement … . I had not anticipated that the integrity of the Appellants would be called into question and so had obtained only cursory instructions relating to the conveyancing process they had pursued. From the enquiries made by the Inspector at the hearing, I had begun to suspect that the Inspector believed that Mr Pitblado bought Gable End in full knowledge of the lack of planning permission. I was therefore reassured when Mr Pitblado produced the invoice which (to my mind) proved that he did no such thing. My initial conclusion, upon noting that Mr Pitblado had indeed been charged for a local authority search, was that the search provider and/or the local authority itself had made a mistake. I placed the invoice in front of the Inspector and am sure that he saw it; I said words to the effect that “they [meaning Hilliers] charged him for the search”
“21. As to the claimed error of fact, in the sentence with which offence is taken, “not” should be taken as applying to both “have known” and “tried to establish”
“… The danger is that the “more relaxed” atmosphere could lead not to a “full and fair” hearing but to a less than thorough examination of the issues. A relaxed hearing is not necessarily a fair hearing. The hearing must not become so relaxed that the rigorous examination essential to the determination of difficult questions may be diluted. The absence of an accusatorial procedure places an inquisitorial burden upon an inspector.”
“I return to the submission about the need for the Inspector to have adopted an inquisitorial role. No one suggests that an Inspector is required to engage in a search for material not put before him. What [Dyason] establishes is that, when there is an informal hearing which, as a matter of procedure, normally excludes cross-examination, the Inspector has to play an enhanced role in order to resolve conflicts of evidence. In addition, such an Inspector must not arrive at a finding adverse to a party without having put the point to the party in question or his witness, and that is what happened in [Dyason].”
“There was, in the inspector’s approach in [Dyason], a failure which led to the decision of this court. There has been a failure in the present case but one, in my judgment, on the appellant’s behalf. An inspector’s duty to investigate does not extend to the length which it is submitted in this case it should. It does not relieve an appellant of the responsibility of preparing and setting out a case which can form the basis of the discussion at the meeting. It is not for an inspector always to root out a case which the appellant has singularly, with respect, failed to put; particularly where, as in this case, the appellant is represented by someone skilled in the field of planning.”