An Egham farm owner has failed in his High Court attempt to overturn a council enforcement notice that alleged he was wrongly using his land to store building materials and equipment.
Runnymede Borough Council had issued a number of enforcement notices against Daniel Beach, owner of Padd Farm, Hurst Lane, Egham, Surrey, in September 1999, including the notice under challenge in the instant case.
This notice alleged that Mr Beach had changed the use of his land to “the storage of building and other material and plant and equipment”, without planning consent.
In his appeal against the notice, Mr Beach contended that no enforcement action could be taken in respect of the alleged breach of planning control, as the use had been continuous for over 10 years.
However, the council claimed that Mr Beach had switched activities from one use to another in order to evade enforcement proceedings, and that the activities complained of, had not been carried on for 10 years continuously.
Following a public inquiry, a government inspector refused Mr Beachs appeal and upheld the notice.
Challenging that decision in the High Court, Mr Beach alleged that the inspector had erred in law by deciding the issue of material change based upon whether there had been a significant change to mixed use on the site, and by concentrating on the number of different uses rather than the nature and extent of the uses.
Dismissing Beach’s appeal, Ouseley J held that none of these submissions were acceptable, saying:
“The inspector was bound to examine the effect upon the use, at the start of the period, of the additional uses that sprang up. The inspector did not constrain his analysis of the materiality of those new uses to a comparison of their effect only on that part of the use set out, but compared what was now happening with the whole of the uses existing at the start of the 10-year period.”
Beach v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions Queen’s Bench Division (Ouseley J) 4 May 2001
PLS News 9/5/01
