“From time to time we come across some less well known provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA)”, says Mark Sanders of Acorn Rural Property Consultants.
“One of them is section 173 (11) of the TCPA which says that, where an enforcement notice that has been served by a Local Planning Authority (LPA) in respect of any breach of planning control could have required any buildings or works to be removed or any activity to cease, but does not do so; and all the requirements of the notice have been complied with, then retrospective planning permission shall be treated as having been granted for any development or change of use that did not have to be removed or cease”, continues Sanders.
“A good example is land near Beaford, Devon where the LPA had served an enforcement notice to prevent what it considered to be the change of use of agricultural land to a mixed use for agriculture and game rearing, and the storage of non-agricultural materials, supplies and equipment. It served an enforcement notice requiring the use of the land for game rearing to stop and the removal of all game rearing equipment and other non-agricultural stores, supplies and equipment. The owner complied with the enforcement notice and subsequently made an application for a certificate of lawfulness for the use of the land for the storage of non-agricultural materials, supplies and equipment on the grounds that the enforcement notice could have required that use to cease but did not do so. He argued that section 173 (11) of the TCPA applied”, explains Sanders.
“The LPA refused the application and said that the enforcement notice contained an ongoing obligation not to use the land for the storage of non-agricultural stores, supplies and equipment but it was granted by a planning inspector on appeal who concluded that the enforcement notice could have required that use of the land to cease, but did not do so”, concludes Sanders.
For further information please contact Acorn Rural Property Consultants on 01884 212380