Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively analyzed previous case law to support its reasoning:

• R (St Anselm Development Co Ltd) v First Secretary of State [2003]: This case highlighted that breaches of planning conditions over a ten-year period render enforcement action time-barred under Section 171B(3). The Inspector drew parallels between the current case and St Anselm, reinforcing the notion that prolonged breaches affect the entire planning unit.
• North Devon DC v First Secretary of State [2004]: Addressed the interpretation of seasonal occupancy conditions. Although distinguished as not directly applicable, it reinforced the principle that the specifics of planning conditions and their breaches require careful judicial interpretation.
• Rastrum Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009]: Discussed the role of legitimate expectations in planning law, although its applicability was limited in this case due to insufficient evidence of such expectations.
• Burdle v Secretary of State for the Environment [1972]: Provided foundational insights into the concept of a planning unit, emphasizing its judicial interpretation rather than explicit legislative definition.
• Bolton MDC v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995]: Guided the principles around the awarding of costs, establishing that the Secretary of State is typically entitled to costs in such scenarios.

Legal Reasoning

The court delved deeply into the statutory framework of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, particularly focusing on Sections 191, 172, 187A, and 171B. The key aspects of the legal reasoning include:

• Identification of the Planning Unit: The Inspector determined that the entire caravan site constituted a single planning unit. Despite breaches in specific sub-areas, the overarching planning conditions remained applicable to the entire site.
• Application of Section 171B(3): The prolonged breach exceeding ten years triggered the immunity from enforcement action. The court affirmed that the Inspector's interpretation aligned with legislative intent and prior case law.
• Legitimate Expectation: The Appellant's argument hinged on establishing a legitimate expectation based on prior LPA communications. However, the court found the evidence insufficient, as the LPA's statements did not amount to unequivocal assurances.
• Interpretation of Conditions: Drawing from St Anselm, the court clarified that conditions could not be reinterpreted to apply individually to each unit unless expressly stated. This prevents local authorities from circumventing statutory time limits on enforcement.

Impact

The judgment has significant implications for future cases involving LDCs and breached planning conditions:

• Clarity on Planning Units: Establishes that planning units are assessed as whole entities, and breaches within any part can affect the entire unit's compliance status.
• Enforcement Time Limits: Reinforces the ten-year limit for enforcement actions post-breach, aligning with Section 171B(3) and providing predictability for both LPAs and appellants.
• Legitimate Expectation Threshold: Sets a high bar for establishing legitimate expectations, requiring clear and unequivocal commitments from LPAs, thereby protecting authorities from being bound by ambiguous communications.
• Precedential Value: Underscores the continued authority of the St Anselm decision, ensuring consistency in how courts interpret and apply planning laws concerning LDCs and enforcement.

Lawful Development Certificate (LDC)

An LDC is a legal document issued by a local planning authority (LPA) that confirms whether a specific use of land or buildings is lawful under planning legislation. It essentially certifies that the current use does not require planning permission either because it complies with existing permissions or meets specific legal criteria.

Breach of Planning Condition

This occurs when the terms set out in a planning permission are not adhered to. For instance, if planning permission for a caravan site stipulates that caravans can only be used for holiday purposes, using them as full-time residences would constitute a breach.

Legitimate Expectation

A principle in administrative law where a person can expect a certain behavior from a public body based on the body’s past actions, representations, or established practices. However, to successfully claim a legitimate expectation, the representation must be clear, unambiguous, and the authority must intend to be bound by it.

Section 171B(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

This section stipulates that enforcement action cannot be taken for a breach of planning conditions if the breach has persisted for ten years from the date it began. This provision ensures that authorities cannot pursue enforcement indefinitely for long-standing non-compliance.