“(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Part as to the duration, revocation or modification of planning permission, any grant of planning permission to develop land shall (except as in so far as the permission otherwise provides) enure for the benefit of the land and of all persons for the time being interested in it. (2) Where planning permission is granted for the erection of a building, the grant of permission may specify the purposes for which the building may be used. (3) If no purpose is so specified, the permission shall be construed as including permission to use the building for the purpose for which it is designed.”
“(1) The local planning authority may issue a notice (in this Act referred to as an “enforcement notice”) where it appears to them— (a) that there has been a breach of planning control; and (b) that it is expedient to issue the notice, having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations.” (a) that there has been a breach of planning control; and (b) that it is expedient to issue the notice, having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations.”
“(1) Where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the carrying out without planning permission of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date on which the operations were substantially completed. (2) Where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the change of use of any building to use as a single dwelling house, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date of the breach. (3) In the case of any other breach of planning control, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of ten years beginning with the date of the breach.”
“Effective enforcement is important as a means of maintaining public confidence in the planning system. Enforcement action is discretionary and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control…”
“5. Effective enforcement is important to - tackle breaches of planning control which would otherwise have unacceptable impact on the amenity of the area. - maintain the integrity of the decision-making process. - help ensure that public acceptance of the decision-making process is maintained.”
“When might formal enforcement action not be appropriate? Nothing in this guidance should be taken as condoning a wilful breach of planning law. Enforcement action should, however, be proportionate to the breach of planning control to which it relates and taken when it is expedient to do so. Where the balance of public interest lies will vary from case to case. In deciding, in each case, what is the most appropriate way forward, local planning authorities should usually avoid taking formal enforcement action where: - there is a trivial or technical breach of control which causes no material harm or adverse impact on the amenity of the site or the surrounding area; - development is acceptable on its planning merits and formal enforcement action would solely be to regularise the development; - in their assessment, the local planning authority consider that an application is the appropriate way forward to regularise the situation, for example, where planning condition may need to be imposed.” - there is a trivial or technical breach of control which causes no material harm or adverse impact on the amenity of the site or the surrounding area; - development is acceptable on its planning merits and formal enforcement action would solely be to regularise the development; - in their assessment, the local planning authority consider that an application is the appropriate way forward to regularise the situation, for example, where planning condition may need to be imposed.”
“Protection from enforcement in respect of a building and its use are thus potentially very different matters. Mr Beesley could have applied for a certificate under subsection (1) in respect of the building as soon as July 2006 was over, but he has not done so. He has focused on the use of the building for four years, in respect of which, he submits, he must now be entitled to protection by reference to roughly, though not precisely, the same four year period. If the right analysis were that there has been no change of use within subsection (2), the only alternative analysis must, he points out, be that use of the building as a dwelling house, which is either impermissible or positively prohibited under the relevant planning permission, can be the subject of an enforcement notice at any time within a ten year period under subsection (3). I agree that that would, on its face, seem surprising. However, it becomes less so, once one appreciates that an exactly parallel situation involving different time periods applies to the construction without permission and the use of a factory or any building other than a single dwelling house. The building attracts a four year period for enforcement under subsection (1), while its use attracts, at any rate in theory, a ten year period for enforcement under subsection (3). I say in theory because there is a potential answer to this apparent anomaly, one which would apply as much to a dwelling house as to any other building. It is that, once a planning authority has allowed the four year period for enforcement against the building to pass, principles of fairness and good governance could, in appropriate circumstances, preclude it from subsequently taking enforcement steps to render the building useless.”
“If one wishes to see some logic in the distinction between the two types of breach – that is, a breach where the variation has existed for four years or more and a breach where that which is described as a variation is something ancillary to the use – as it seems to me, the former case is one where something is done that, on the whole, would be permanent by the mere fact that it is done and, therefore, something that should be dealt with within a period of four years, whereas in the second case, where it is a question of an ancillary purpose, the planning matter might leave land , as in this case, in a useless condition for any purpose, and therefore it is logical that, when the use which has no planning permission is enforced against, the land should be restored to the condition in which it was before that use started.”
“Use. Although this application is only concerned with the impacts of the operational development on the site, the submitted ES also assesses the likely impacts from the use of the site for that operational development. I have therefore carefully assessed the likely environmental impact in this regard as well, having taken into account relevant consultation responses and representations received.”
“37. From my various visits – and taking into account that it was apparent from the file and my knowledge of the Site that the operations had been ongoing for over 10 years – I concluded that in my opinion, there was no immediate indication that the developments that had been constructed resulted in either a significant expansion or intensification of the Site, or significant harm arising out of such development, that would warrant enforcement action at that time.”
“10. I have also considered paragraphs 41 to 55 of Mr Armes’ statement where Mr Armes explains the development of the Site over the last 10 years. 11. I do not have any information which would lead me to doubt the information contained in this evidence, and on review of this evidence, I can endorse those conclusions made in paragraph 37 of [Christopher Curtis’s] Statement. I agree that there is no evidence before the Council that would indicate that these developments constructed in the last 10 years resulted in intensification, or material change of use of the Site.”