Town and Country Planning Act 1971–Appeal from decision of Secretary of State upholding enforcement notice–Meaning of ‘builders’ merchants’ warehouse’–Use of warehouse as retail ‘do-it-yourself’ supermarket not permitted–Appeal dismissed
This was an
appeal by Monomart (Warehouses) Ltd, Wetton Bros Ltd, Clapton Building Supplies
Ltd and Bosskon Ltd under section 246 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971
from a decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment, upholding with
minor amendments an enforcement notice served upon them by the Bristol District
Council requiring them to discontinue the use of a warehouse in Channons Hill,
Fishponds, for the purpose of retail sales other than such sales as were
incidental to the use of the building as a builders’ merchants’ warehouse.
W J Glover QC
and C S Fay (instructed by Stanleys & Simpson, North, agents for Stanley,
Wasbrough & Co, of Bristol) appeared for the appellants; H K Woolf
(instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) represented the first respondent; the
second respondents, Bristol District Council, were not represented and took no
part in the appeal.
Giving
judgment LORD WIDGERY said that by virtue of planning consent the appellants
erected four warehouses on the appeal site, one warehouse being described in
the planning consent as a ‘builders’ merchants’ warehouse.’ In no time at all after the completion of the
warehouses, the building described as a ‘builders’ merchants’ warehouse’ began
being used as a ‘do-it-yourself’ supermarket with 95 per cent of the trade
being retail to the general public. The local authority did not want that. The
development generated an enormous amount of traffic, as people used their cars
to visit the building, and on April 2 1973 the local authority served an
enforcement notice. From that notice the appellants appealed to the Secretary
of State, who dismissed it.
The appellants
now contended that, on a proper construction of the original planning consent
and in all the circumstances, the consent covered the activities now complained
of. Put in another way, the argument was that ‘builders’
sale of ‘do-it-yourself’ materials. The Secretary of State had been right to
reject that contention. The word ‘warehouse’ had a well-known meaning. It meant
a place where goods were stored before being taken elsewhere for sale or
disposal. It was not a place where retail sales were carried out. The addition
of the words ‘builders’ merchants’ to the word ‘warehouse’ did nothing more
than describe the type of goods to be warehoused.
The Secretary
of State, in dismissing the appeal, had amended the notice so as to allow
retail sale of materials ancillary to the use of the premises as a builders’
merchants’ warehouse. It was not a notice which required amendment. The notice,
without any reference to retail sales ancillary to the use of the building as a
builders’ merchants’ warehouse, was a valid notice. The original notice banned
the use of the building for retail sales in excess of retail sales permissible
as being incidental to the main use. The appeal should be dismissed.
PARK J and
PETER PAIN J agreed that the appeal should be dismissed.
The appeal
was dismissed with costs. The appellants were given leave to appeal to the
Court of Appeal.
