The appellants challenged an enforcement notice saying that it was a development ‘reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture’ within an agricultural unit of at least 5 hectares.
Held: Carnwath LJ, with whom the other members of the court agreed, observed at para 33 of his judgment that the inspector has wide powers to decide whether there is any solution, short of a complete remedy of the breach, which is acceptable in planning terms and amenity terms. If there is, he should be prepared to modify the requirements of the notice and grant permission subject to conditions. The inspector’s primary task, however, is to consider the proposals that have been put before him, and although he is free to suggest alternatives it is not his duty to search around for solutions
Carnwath LJ said: ‘As I have said, I would not wish to lay down any general rules. I would accept that as a general proposition, given the limitations of the written representations procedure, an appellant would be well advised to put forward any possible fall-back position as part of his substantive case. It is not the duty of the inspector to make his case for him. On the other hand the inspector should bear in mind that the enforcement procedure is intended to be remedial rather than punitive. If on his consideration of the submissions and in the light of the site view, it appears to him that there is an obvious alternative which would overcome the planning difficulties, at less cost and disruption than total removal, he should feel free to consider it. In such circumstances fairness may require him to give notice to the parties to enable them to comment on it . . .’
‘the enforcement procedure is intended to be remedial rather than punitive’.
Judges:
Carnwath LJ, Wilson LJ, Hughes LJ
Citations:
[2007] 2 P and CR 7, [2006] EWCA Civ 1744, [2007] 2 P and CR 133
Links:
Statutes:
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Tapecrown Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 11-Apr-2006
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Moore v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 18-Sep-2012
An enforcement notice had been issued alleging an unlawful change of use without planning permission of the Appellant’s property from a C3 dwelling to use as commercial leisure accommodation. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.247499
