Prosecution for breach of enforcement notice — Planning permission — Effect of later permission on notice — Whether notice ceased to have effect — Whether justices should stop committal proceedings — Points of legal interpretation should be decided at trial — Application by local planning authority allowed
On July 24 1986 the applicant local planning authority issued an enforcement notice alleging that Mr George Knight erected a two-storey building on his farm in breach of planning control; a further notice was issued on April 6 1987 in respect of an extension carried out to the building. Following appeals, the inspector varied the notices in requiring only partial demolition of the buildings subject to details being submitted to the applicants for approval. Mr Knight did not submit the details requested but did make two planning applications. The first was for a single-storey feed store described as “Removal of first floor and conversion of external staircase”; that application was granted planning permission on February 16 1988. The second was “building to be converted into a dwelling”; that was refused on March 7 1988. Mr Knight refused to confirm that the first application was to be regarded as a submission of details as required by the inspector. The applicants then brought criminal proceedings alleging non-compliance with the enforcement notices on the basis of the situation on the land on July 8 1988.
Before the justices, Mr Knight relied on section 92(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to the effect that where planning permission is granted for the retention of buildings the subject of an enforcement notice, the notice ceases to have effect in so far as it requires the demolition or alteration of the building. The justices dismissed the proceedings and the applicants applied by way of judicial review to quash the decision of the justices.
Held The application was allowed and an order granted that the case go back to the justices.
1. For the purposes of section 92(1) of the 1971 Act, “building” includes “any part of a building”. The effect of the section was not that an enforcement notice ceases to have any effect altogether but that where a later planning permission is granted, the enforcement notice ceases to have effect in respect of those parts of buildings which are the subject of the planning permission. Accordingly, the justices should continue to hear the committal proceedings applying this interpretation.
2. Unless it was clear that the interpretation of a section in legislation advanced on behalf of the defendant is right and that advanced by the prosecutor is wrong, justices should not stop committal proceedings. Where there was an arguable point, it was better for the point to be argued at trial before the crown court judge.
Andrew Kelly (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, for the solicitor to Chichester District Council) appeared for the applicants; and Clive Newton (instructed by Charles Hill & Co, of Chichester) appeared for the respondent justices.
