Section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 empowers a local planning authority (LPA) to require the cessation of any use of land, to impose conditions on the continuance of any such use and to require the alteration or removal of any buildings or works. (It is irrelevant whether the use of the land is lawful or unlawful.) However, the LPA may, in the exercise of any of these powers, face a claim for compensation under section 115 of the Act. Furthermore, the landowner may be entitled, under section 137, to serve a purchase notice on the LPA. Whether the LPA should have made a discontinuance order was a further issue in R (on the application of Usk Valley Conservation Group) v Brecon Beacons National Park Authority [2010] EWHC 71 (Admin); [2010] PLSCS 61: see PP 2010/35.
There, the local residents complained about breaches of the condition on the planning permission limiting the number of caravans that could lawfully be stationed on the application site. The LPA considered whether to make an order under section 102 requiring the discontinuance of the use of the land for the stationing of caravans. Following a report on the levels of compensation that it would potentially have to pay were it to do so, the LPA resolved to leave the question of a discontinuance order in abeyance and instead to issue an enforcement notice under section 172. A local amenity group challenged this decision also, by means of a claim for judicial review. It argued, in particular, that the LPA was not entitled to take into account the requirement to pay compensation.
Section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 empowers a local planning authority (LPA) to require the cessation of any use of land, to impose conditions on the continuance of any such use and to require the alteration or removal of any buildings or works. (It is irrelevant whether the use of the land is lawful or unlawful.) However, the LPA may, in the exercise of any of these powers, face a claim for compensation under section 115 of the Act. Furthermore, the landowner may be entitled, under section 137, to serve a purchase notice on the LPA. Whether the LPA should have made a discontinuance order was a further issue in R (on the application of Usk Valley Conservation Group) v Brecon Beacons National Park Authority [2010] EWHC 71 (Admin); [2010] PLSCS 61: see PP 2010/35.
There, the local residents complained about breaches of the condition on the planning permission limiting the number of caravans that could lawfully be stationed on the application site. The LPA considered whether to make an order under section 102 requiring the discontinuance of the use of the land for the stationing of caravans. Following a report on the levels of compensation that it would potentially have to pay were it to do so, the LPA resolved to leave the question of a discontinuance order in abeyance and instead to issue an enforcement notice under section 172. A local amenity group challenged this decision also, by means of a claim for judicial review. It argued, in particular, that the LPA was not entitled to take into account the requirement to pay compensation.
The court held that the decision to issue an enforcement notice, rather than to make a discontinuance order, was lawful. The LPA was obliged, under section 102, to decide whether a discontinuance order was expedient in the interests of proper planning, having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations. The LPA had a discretion. The judge stated that where public money was at stake, because statute made compensation part of the scheme being invoked, its cost was – in the absence of clear words – a consideration relevant to expediency. The word “expediency” was apt to require attention to be paid to that, and wholly inapt to exclude consideration of the consequential liability that would face the LPA on taking the discontinuance decision.
John Martin is a freelance writer
