Use of land for shooting – Enforcement notice – Extension of time for compliance – Meaning of calendar year – Number of permitted uses – Effect of extension of time for compliance – Whether breach occurring within extension period – Whether breach occurring within calendar year
The respondent was part-owner of land over which clay pigeon and rifle shooting had taken place. On February 15 1993 the district council served an enforcement notice requiring him to restrict the number of days shooting to 28 days in total in any one calendar year. The respondent appealed and on October 7 1993 the inspector dismissed the appeal, but extended the time for compliance from seven days to four months. The enforcement notice took effect on February 6 1994. On November 20 and December 4 1994 the 30th and 31st shooting events took place on the land since January 1 1994. The respondent was charged with breach of the enforcement notice contrary to section 179(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as substituted by section 8 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.
At the trial the judge accepted a defence submission that because four of the days of shooting had occurred before February 6 1994 they did not count towards the 28 permitted days. The Attorney-General referred to the court the question "whether where (i) an enforcement notice is served having a period for compliance fixed, pursuant to section 173(9) of the Town and Country Planning Act1990, to end part way through a ‘calendar year’ and (ii) the notice requires the defendant to cease the use of the land for a named purpose (for example, clay pigeon and air rifle shooting)" for more than 28 days in total in any calendar year permitted by virtue of the provisions of article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 4, Class B of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988" is the offence under section 179(2) of the 1990 Act (breach of an enforcement notice) proved by proof of the use of the land for the named purpose on a given date, falling after the time fixed for compliance, if the land has been used for the named purposes for more than 28 days in the calendar year if account is taken of days of use falling before the expiry of the time fixed for compliance, but not otherwise?"
Held The answer to the point of law posed in the reference was, no.
The respondent was guilty of an offence under section 179(2) because he was in breach of the enforcement notice the effect of which was to require him to cease the use of the land for shooting, except in accordance with the planning permission granted by the GDO, by February 6 1994. After that date any use of the land for shooting was a breach of the enforcement notice unless it had the benefit of the planning permission. The calendar year, for the purposes of the GDO, ran from January 1 to December 31 and therefore a use only had the benefit of the planning permission granted by the order if the total number of days use in that period did not exceed 28 days. By extending the period for compliance the inspector was not to be taken as having granted planning permission for uses falling after the time fixed for compliance which did not otherwise have the benefit of the permission conferred by the order. Accordingly the days of shooting which took place on November 20 and December 4 exceeded the permitted number of 28 days and there was nothing unclear or uncertain in the notice received by the respondent.
Richard Drabble QC and Nicholas Hilliard (instructed by theTreasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State for Environment; Andrew Bright (instructed by Goodhand & Forsyth, Redhill) for the respondent.
