The onus of proof in disputes over whether property is being put to a different use to that for which planning consent was originally granted, has been clarified by the High Court.
A property owner faced with a local authority enforcement notice ordering that its property should be restored to what the council believed was its former, multiple-occupancy use as bedsits, has lost its High Court challenge to a planning inspector’s backing of the local authority decision.
The challenge failed because the company did not produce sufficient evidence to prove its claims that the authority were wrong to say that the nine self-contained units that had been created in the property conflicted with the alleged previous bedsit occupancy.
The planning inspector had taken the view that the property owner had failed to produce evidence to show that the property had been put to any use other than the one claimed by the council.
Dismissing the owner’s challenge, the judge said that, under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, it was up to the owner to prove there had been no planning breach.
He said that, as far as the authority were concerned, they did not have to prove such a breach.
ZZZ Incorporated v First Secretary of State and another Queen’s Bench Division (Gibbs J) 11 April 2003.
References: PLS News 14/4/03
