Activities taking place in buildings on land unrelated to planning permission purposes — Enforcement notices upheld after inquiry and appeals to the courts — Prosecutions by local authority — Whether offence one of strict liability — Whether failure to serve notice properly makes notice a nullity — Whether whole of site a single planning unit — Appeals against conviction dismissed — Knowledge of enforcement notice not essential part of offence
Springfield Farm, Wivelsfield, East Sussex, was owned at all material times by S. In 1973 planning permission was granted for the use of the land for egg packing and distribution and servicing of vehicles in that connection. By 1979 at least three different businesses were taking place on the land, which had nothing to do with the original purpose: a vehicle repair business run by K; a vehicle servicing business run by W and H; and a bulk-storage business, P Ltd. The planning authority served three enforcement notices for discontinuance of the businesses. Notice was also served on S as landower. The notices were accepted by a firm of solicitors. An inquiry was held and an appeal made to the High Court against the enforcement notices. On remittance the notices were again upheld. Appeals were then heard in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, which dismissed them. In 1990, the council’s enforcement officer visited the site and saw the first four dependants engaged in the car repair business and the fifth dependant engaged in loading tiles, which had been stored on the land. Proceedings were commenced and the appellants pleaded guilty after it was held that the offences were one of strict liability. The appellants appealed.
Held The appeals were dismissed.
1. From the evidence, the notice addressed to S was clearly sufficient to establish that an enforcement notice had come into existence. Moreover, there was clear authority for the proposition that the failure to serve an enforcement notice in accordance with section 87(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 did not render the notice a nullity.
2. The Secretary of State was also perfectly entitled to come to the conclusion that the whole site was a single planning unit on which mixed non-conforming uses were taking place.
3. The planning authority did not need any evidence to established that the appellants had any actual knowledge of the enforcement notice. It was plain from the statutory provisions that they were intended to encourage those who owned, occupied or otherwise had interests in land to take all necessary steps to advise themselves of the planning status of land: see section 243(2). Parliament must therefore have intended that the burden of establishing whether or not any use of land was prohibited should be on the person seeking to make use of the land. That obligation had to be seen against the background that enforcement notices were registerable as land charges kept by every district planning authority as available for inspection by the public.
Christopher Beaumont (instructed by Pothecary & Barrett) appeared for the appellants; Paul Ashwell (instructed by the the solicitor to Lewes District Council) appeared for the Crown.
