Conditional planning permission for excavation of minerals — Planning permission expiring but condition unfulfilled — Enforcement notice — Notice not appealed — Appellants purchasing land with full knowledge of condition — Whether appellants bound by terms of enforcement notice
The proceedings concerned land used for the extraction of minerals. The original planning permission had been granted subject to the condition that, upon the expiry of the planning permission, the land was to be returned to meadowland. In 1985, contrary to the terms of the planning permission, a workshop was erected on the land and used by a third party in its engineering business, the then owner of the land having deliberately misled the third party as to the lawfulness of the site. In 1998, the original planning permission lapsed and the council issued an enforcement notice ordering the landowner to demolish the buildings on the land and return the land to meadowland. The notice was never appealed.
In 1999, the appellants purchased the land, with full knowledge of the enforcement notice, which the council sought to enforce against them. After a series of appeals, the following issues fell to be determined: (i) was the construction and use of the workshop lawful?; (ii) if so was the workshop outside the scope of the condition?; (iii) if so, did section 285 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 apply?; and (iv) should the appellants be prejudiced by the previous owner’s fraudulent behaviour?
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
1. The use of the workshop had been lawful. As it had been used for more than 10 years no enforcement proceedings could be taken: see section 171B(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. However the workshop was on land covered by the enforcement notice and compliance with the enforcement notice required the removal of the workshop.
3. Since the 1998 enforcement notice had not been appealed at the time, section 285 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 precluded the court from questioning its validity and it was too late for the appellants to raise the issue.
4. The court was bound to take any dishonesty into account. The appellants had purchased the land with full knowledge of the planning conditions, which stated what had to be done by the landowner. They were bound by those terms.
Keith Lindblom QC and David Park (instructed by Lawrence Graham) appeared for the appellants; Benedict Sefi and Stephen Morgan (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, as agent for the solicitor to Buckinghamshire County Council) appeared for the respondents.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
