A new landmark ruling by the Supreme Court over planning breaches should act as a serious warning to landowners and developers, according to one regional law firm.
Peter Edwards, a solicitor with Cornwall firm Stephens Scown, says the decision that a Hertfordshire developer breached planning rules by building a luxury house disguised as a barn on greenbelt land, will have significant repercussions for other ’unauthorised dwellings’ in the countryside.
"The rules on planning enforcement, periods of immunity and certificates of lawfulness are about to become a lot more complicated. This decision, combined with the draft statutory provisions of the Localism Bill, is likely to bring about a very important change in the law relating to planning breaches," he said.
The Localism Bill provisions on ’concealed planning breaches’ will become law later this year.
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled against Alan Beesley criticising his "dishonest behaviour" after he was granted permission in 2001 to build a barn for agricultural use only, but fitted it out as a luxury house complete with a living room, study, bedrooms, bathroom, gym and garage.
Four years after moving in, Mr Beesley applied for a certificate of lawfulness when he believed the time limit for enforcement action had expired. The local planning authority refused to grant a certificate and Mr Beesley appealed against the decision which ended in the Supreme Court ruling in the Council’s favour. It means the couple can no longer live in the barn.
Peter Edwards added: "Farmers, landowners and all developers should learn from this case which will, no doubt, have far-reaching consequences for future planning applications and approvals for agricultural and other types of buildings across the South West".
The Localism Bill provides that where there is a concealed breach, within six months of becoming aware of it, the local planning authority may apply for a Planning Enforcement Order (PEO). The PEO allows the authority a year to take enforcement action against the apparent breach. Peter says this is significant because the PEO can be applied for whether or not the statutory immunity periods have expired, but only where there is a concealed breach.
He said: "Certificate of lawfulness applications and how they’re dealt with are significantly affected by the draft legislation. An application will bring the breach to the local authority’s attention and may trigger an application for a PEO if they believe the breach was concealed."
Peter Edwards added: "Some may think the Supreme Court’s gone even further by saying that conduct including deliberately misleading false statements preventing discovery of the breach is beyond the scope of statutory immunity. The question now is whether any dishonest breaches of planning will ever be immune from enforcement or be capable of being certified as lawful.
"The changes to the law are likely to be very significant. The consequences of mistakenly relying on immunity from planning enforcement or inadequate applications for certificates of lawfulness are usually significant and often dramatic as we have seen from this case."
