The appellant complained that an enforcement notice had been served as to an entire plot of land when the activities complained of, sand and gravel extraction, had occurred on only two smaller parts.
Held: The site should be looked at as a whole. The appellant had a licence from the land owner to extract materials from the remaining site, had claimed the right to make such extractions, and had already extended their operations during the appeal process. The abolition of the four year rule for change of use enforcement did not apply to mining.
Judges:
Lord Denning MR, Edmund Davies, Stephenson LJJ
Citations:
[1972] 3 All ER 1092
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Burdle v Secretary of State for the Environment QBD 22-Jun-1972
The appellants had purchased land which had been used as a dwelling with a lean-to annex which had been used as a scrap yard, selling off car parts. The appellant had reconstructed the annex with a shop front, and began to use it more substantially . .
Cited – Britt v Buckinghamshire County Council QBD 1962
The four years period limiting enforcement proceedings runs from the first date at which the enforcement notice could have been served. Widgery J said: ‘If the plaintiff can . . Show that a notice in the terms of that served could, on the facts . .
Cited – Britt v Buckinghamshire County Council CA 1963
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Jennings Motors Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and another CA 27-Nov-1981
The land owners had demolished a building and erected a new building on a small part of the entire site, but without obtaining planning permission. The local authority argued that this was a change of use and a breach of planning control.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.246374