Whether motorbikes “displayed” on forecourt in contravention of planning permission — Contravention of permission under section 187A of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 — Appeal allowed
The appellants operated a motorcycle dealership at premises that were the subject of a planning permission dating from 1964. Condition 6 of the planning permission stated that “the display or sale of vehicles or goods of any description shall not take place on any part of the site except inside the (proposed) building”. Motorbikes were regularly parked outside the premises, either by customers visiting the premises or by staff. Members of staff occasionally used the forecourt in order to demonstrate repaired or upgraded bikes to customers.
In 2001, the local magistrates’ court found that the appellants were in breach of condition 6. The magistrates considered that “display”, for that purpose, was to “open up to view” or to “exhibit to the eyes”. The appellants were accordingly found guilty and convicted under section 187A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. They appealed against that decision by way of case stated, and asked the court to determine the correct meaning of the word “display”.
The questions for the court were: (i) whether the magistrates were right in their construction of the term “display”, or whether it should, as the appellants contended, include a further element of ostentation; and (ii) whether the presence of parked motorcycles outside the premises, even though they were not for sale, constituted a “display” so as to contravene condition 6 of the planning permission. The appellants further contended that if the answer to question (ii) were in the affirmative, then the provision of parking, as envisaged under condition 1, would lead to an automatic breach of condition 6 so as to render both conditions inoperable.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
It was necessary to consider the purpose for which an article was “opened up to view” or “exhibited to the eyes”. The correct definition of the term was “to display an object or to put it on show or exhibit it in order to attract people’s attention to it”. Although the primary purpose of such a display would be to promote the sale of those goods, the definition would also cover a situation where some other commercial benefit was envisaged, for example that of attracting passing trade.
In the instant case, when deciding whether the vehicles were “displayed” in that manner, the magistrates should have considered, on an objective basis, whether the evidence demonstrated that the vehicles were on the forecourt for the purpose of obtaining such a commercial benefit. Mere parking of vehicles did not, of itself, constitute such a reason. The questions posed by the magistrates indicated that they were uncertain as to the correct approach to take. The convictions were quashed and the matter remitted back to the magistrates’ court.
Andrew Fraser-Urquhart (instructed by Streeter Marshall, of Croydon) appeared for the appellants; David Lintott (instructed by the solicitor to Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough Council) appeared for the respondents.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
