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.
Held: The erection of a new building to replace an earlier one did not constitute a new planning unit, but the new building could inherit the use established by the former.
Lord Denning MR, Oliver, Watkins LJJ
[1982] 1 All ER 471, [1982] QB 541, [1982] 2 WLR 131, (1981) 43 P and CR 316
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 – Aston v Secretary of State for the Environment 9-Apr-1973
The court considered the planning effect of a new building on about a half of a site. Lord Widgery CJ: ‘. . The principle which one derives from the authorities and applies to the present case is that, where you have a new building erected, that . .
Cited – Petticoat Lane Rentals Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1971
A burnt out site had had a lawful use for a market but was granted a planning permission for a new commercial building. When the building had been constructed the market had carried on, on the ground floor of the building and it was contended that . .
Cited – Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1980
Issues arose as to a new planning permission for two existing hangars.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The question of the validity of conditions attached to planning permissions will sometimes be a difficult one. To be valid, a condition must be . .
Cited – Thomas David (Porthcawl) Ltd and others v Penybont Rural District Council and others 5-Oct-1972
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.246384