Enforcement notice–Appellant failed to make out pre-1964 development–Inspector’s conclusions on factual issues supported–Appeal against confirmation of notice dismissed
This was an
appeal by Mr Arnold Catton against a decision of the first respondent, the
Secretary of State for the Environment, upholding, with certain modifications,
an enforcement notice served upon the appellant by the Neston Urban District
Council, the predecessors of the second respondents, the Ellesmere Port Borough
Council, requiring him to discontinue the use of land owned by him at Heath
Farm, Dunstan Lane, Burton, Wirral, for parking or servicing vehicles or
storing vehicle parts.
Mr J Hugill
(instructed by Gregory Rowcliffe & Co, agents for Steggles & Mather, of
Chester) appeared for the appellant, and Mr H K Woolf (instructed by the
Treasury Solicitor) represented the first respondent. The second respondents
took no part in the proceedings.
Giving
judgment, LORD WIDGERY said that by an enforcement notice dated April 23 1973
the Neston Urban District Council, the predecessors of the Ellesmere Port
Borough Council, required the appellant to discontinue the use of 90 acres of
land at Heath Farm for the purpose of parking or servicing of heavy goods
vehicles and the storage of vehicle parts. The ground for the notice was that
the use of which complaint was made represented a material change of use since
January 1964 for which planning consent had not been given. The notice, with
certain amendments, had been upheld by the Secretary of State after an inquiry
held by one of his inspectors. The sole issue at the inquiry was whether the
material changes had taken place after the material date, January 1964. If they
had taken place before that date there had been no breach. The inspector had
had no easy task, and he had taken great care in reaching his conclusion that
there had been some development in breach of planning control. Questions of
fact and degree were for the inspector. It had been a difficult case, but the
inspector was entitled to reach the conclusion that the appellants had not
discharged the onus on him of showing that in the relevant respects there had
been no breach. There had been no error of law shown, and the appeal should be
dismissed.
KILNER BROWN
and WATKINS JJ agreed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
