Enforcement notice–Failure to remove caravans–Plea that storage of caravans was within ‘warehouse’ use accepted by justices–Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order–‘Warehouse’ implied covered storage–Appeal against justices’ decision allowed
This was an
appeal by William David Hooper, by way of case stated by justices sitting at
Newquay, from their dismissal on February 15 1977 of an information preferred
by the appellant on behalf of the Restormel Borough Council against Peter Richard
Slater, alleging his failure to comply with an enforcement notice requiring him
to remove two caravans on land at St Columb Road, Newquay, on the ground that
such use constituted a material change of use for which no planning consent had
been given.
J Sullivan
(instructed by Sharpe, Pritchard & Co, agents for the solicitor to the
borough of Restormel) appeared for the appellant. The respondent did not appear
and was not represented.
Giving
judgment, LORD WIDGERY CJ said that in 1971 the respondent was granted planning
permission for use of the land in question for warehousing and as a storage
depot. Proceedings had subsequently been taken against him for failing to
remove from the site two caravans in accordance with the terms of an
enforcement notice.
The argument
before the justices, and in the present appeal, was that the presence of the
caravans represented a breach of planning control. The justices, however,
appeared to have been misled by argument to the effect that the planning
permission granted in 1971 would cover the use now complained of. Just how they
got hold of that idea was not clear, but it was quite obvious that the use
permitted by Class X of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order–use
for warehousing and as a storage depot–was not to be equated with the use of any
kind of storage.
It was quite
clear that the use to which the land was put was not a use sanctioned by Class
X. ‘Warehouse’ use implied covered storage. The justices, however, took the
view that the presence of the caravans meant that the land was being used for
‘storage’ and that was good enough. But it was not good enough, because it was
not a use of the kind allowed by the permission granted. The case should go
back to the justices for them to continue the hearing.
CUMMING-BRUCE
LJ and PARK J agreed.
Appeal
allowed, case remitted to the justices with a direction to continue the
hearing. Appellant awarded costs against the respondent.
