Sections 171B(2) and 174(2)(d) of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – Resisting enforcement notice – Evidential requirements when relying upon 10-year time limit
Unfortunately, a bit of a fog hangs over a period of 18 months, when the then occupier was by all accounts unable to deal personally with his car-repair business. Getting evidence will be difficult. Can we invite the inspector to assume that there was no gap in the relevant period ?
It would be otherwise if what you see as the start of the use was, in fact, the resumption of a use that had undoubtedly been lawful at the time it was abandoned.
Sections 171B(2) and 174(2)(d) of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – Resisting enforcement notice – Evidential requirements when relying upon 10-year time limit
Q We use a yard at the rear of our recently acquired retail premises for an unrelated car-repairing business. So far as we are aware, the yard has been so used, in breach of planning control, for the past 11 years. We are accordingly appealing against an enforcement notice on the ground that the use has gone on for at least 10 years.
Unfortunately, a bit of a fog hangs over a period of 18 months, when the then occupier was by all accounts unable to deal personally with his car-repair business. Getting evidence will be difficult. Can we invite the inspector to assume that there was no gap in the relevant period ?
A No. It is clear from Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions v Thurrock Borough Council [2002] EWCA Civ 226; [2002] 10 EG 157 (CS) that it is up to you to show that the use had continued unabated.
It would be otherwise if what you see as the start of the use was, in fact, the resumption of a use that had undoubtedly been lawful at the time it was abandoned.
