Estoppel — Land occupied by two residential caravans — Letter from local planning authority stating that no planning permission necessary — Subsequent issue of enforcement notice for breach of planning control regulations — Whether council estopped by earlier letter from issuing notice — Inspector allowing applicants’ appeal against notice — High Court upholding inspector’s decision — Judgment for applicants
The local planning authority issued an enforcement notice covering land at Woodbine Cottage, Sutton Road, Huttoft. The land was occupied by two residential caravans and the notice alleged a breach of planning control by use of land without planning permission as a caravan site. The landowners appealed to the Secretary of State for the Environment in respect of that notice and an inspector determined the appeal after a public inquiry.
The inspector allowed the appeal on the basis that a letter written on January 16 1979 estopped the council from serving the enforcement notice. That letter written by the local planning authority’s enforcement officer stated that it had been agreed that planning permission would not be required for the stationing of one residential caravan on the land in question. The inspector found that that letter amounted to a determination under section 53 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and that the owners had relied upon that letter in deciding to purchase the site. The council appealed.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. There were two kinds of exception to the general principle that a statutory body could not be estopped from performing their statutory duties (in this case the determination of an application under section 53): (a) If a planning authority, acting as such, delegated to their officers powers to determine specific questions, any decisions they made could not be revoked; and (b) For an estoppel to arise there must be evidence justifying the person dealing with the planning officer for thinking that what the officer said would bind the planning authority: see Western Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council [1981] 2 All ER 204.
2. It was clear from the decision letter that the inspector understood the principles of estoppel which he was seeking to apply and that he had examined carefully the nature of the delegation made in respect of section 53 determinations.
3. Having informed himself as to the legal principles and considered the relevant facts the inspector concluded that the letter of January 1979 came within the first exception to the general principle. He was entitled to reach that conclusion and the way in which he did so could not be faulted.
4. Further, there was no failure to comply with the requirement that there must be a formal application in writing for determination under section 53. On the facts the inspector was entitled to infer that an application in sufficient form had been made.
5. Finally, if a section 53 determination had been issued by a local authority, albeit in respect of a use which predated the application, the determination would be lawful unless and until it was set aside or shown to be flawed by judicial review proceedings and that determination could be relied on as a matter of law subsequently. In the present case the letter of January 1979 contained the unequivocal phrase “planning permission will not be required”. It had no appearance of invalidity and it could be expected that people would place reliance upon it.
James Findlay (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, London agents for the solicitor to East Lindsey District Council) appeared for the council; David Holgate (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; Robert Underwood (instructed by Frearsons, of Lincolnshire) appeared for the landowners.
