The Court of Appeal today backed a pair of High Court rulings affirming that local authorities can still rely on Supreme Court authority in dealing with cases of concealed development designed to benefit from immunity from planning control.
Richards LJ ruled that parliament had not intended to remove the effect of the Supreme Court decision in Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] UKSC 15; [2011] 2 EGLR 151 when it introduced new provisions via section 124 of the Localism Act 2011 allowing authorities to apply to the magistrates’ court for a planning enforcement order (PEO) outside of the usual time limits in cases of deliberate concealment.
The new regime was intended as an additional weapon for local authorities, not an exclusive one.
Richards LJ said: “I am satisfied that parliament did not intend, by enacting the PEO provisions, to remove the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court in Welwyn in relation to cases of deliberate concealment.
“The PEO provisions were included in the Localism Bill at a time when it was not known what approach the Supreme Court would adopt to section 171B, but following the Supreme Court’s decision in Welwyn the PEO procedure was left in the bill, and subsequently enacted, as an alternative and additional, not an exclusive, means of permitting enforcement outside the normal time limit in cases of deliberate concealment.”
“The result is consistent with the legislative objective of strengthening local planning authorities’ enforcement powers.”
He rejected appeals in two cases, each involving concealed conversions of barns into residential dwellings.
Bonsall v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Jackson v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Court of Appeal (Richards LJ, Sales LJ, Baker LJ) 8 December 2015
Paul Brown QC and Alexander Booth (instructed by Keystone Law) for the appellants
Rupert Warren QC (instructed by The Government Legal Department) for the respondent