Pitblado & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The appellants—referred to as the first, second, third, and fourth appellants—challenge the decision of an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. The Inspector determined appeals against enforcement notices issued by a Borough Council relating to alleged breaches of planning control at several dwellings within a terrace known collectively as Threefields.

The enforcement notices, issued on 26 February 2010, concerned unauthorised construction of new dwellings, creation of hard standing, boundary walls, and material change of use from agricultural land to residential gardens. The appellants included owners and tenants of the properties, some of whom had connections to the property development company responsible for the works.

The appeals were conducted by an informal hearing held in September 2010. The appellants were represented by a planning consultant, and the Council was represented by an officer responsible for enforcement notice appeals. Some appellants did not attend the hearing, and no legal representatives appeared for the appellants. The Inspector issued his decision on 1 October 2010, allowing some appeals but dismissing those relating to two key properties.

The current court proceedings concern the appellants' challenge to the Inspector's handling of the appeals relating to these two properties, focusing on the period allowed for compliance with the enforcement notices.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Inspector adopted a procedure manifestly unfair and prejudicial to the appellants in determining their appeals.
2. Whether the Inspector failed to take into account as a material consideration the appellants' efforts to ascertain the planning status of their properties.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The procedure employed by the Inspector was unfair, particularly as the question of the appellants' knowledge about the lack of planning permission was not put in issue by the Council during the hearing.
• The appellants were not given adequate opportunity to respond to the Inspector's concerns about their knowledge or to produce further evidence, including a solicitor's invoice indicating searches had been carried out.
• The informal hearing was not an appropriate forum to address allegations or implications of bad faith; a public inquiry would have been more suitable.
• The Inspector's decision included findings that could imply bad faith or untruthfulness, which prejudiced the appellants' claims against their solicitors and weakened their humanitarian argument for an extension of time.
• The Inspector failed to properly consider the appellants' efforts to verify the planning status of their properties, including reliance on legal advice and searches conducted by solicitors.

Respondent's Arguments

• The appellants themselves introduced the issue of their knowledge of the planning status by basing their appeals on litigation against their solicitors.
• The Inspector's agenda for the hearing clearly identified the relevance of litigation to the period for compliance, providing adequate notice.
• The appellants, through their planning consultant, had ample opportunity to present evidence or request an adjournment or change of procedure but did not do so.
• The Inspector's findings were reasonable and based on the evidence before him, including the appellants' connections to the developer and the absence of evidence substantiating their claims of ignorance.
• The solicitor's invoice, even if produced, would not have materially affected the Inspector's conclusions, as it did not reveal the outcome of searches or what the appellants were told.
• The procedural conduct complied with natural justice and the Human Rights Convention, and the appellants cannot now complain of unfairness after failing to raise concerns at the hearing.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the appellants' claims of unfair procedure and failure to consider material evidence in light of the procedural history and evidence before the Inspector. It found that the appellants had themselves introduced the issue of their knowledge of the planning status by basing their appeals on anticipated litigation against their solicitors. The Inspector's agenda, which identified the relevance of litigation to the compliance period, was a proper and clear notice of the issues to be discussed.

The appellants, represented by an experienced planning consultant, chose an informal hearing and did not seek to change procedure or request adjournments when the issue arose. The Inspector afforded additional opportunity by allowing one appellant to speak during site visits. The court found no breach of natural justice or Article 6 rights, as the appellants had adequate notice and opportunity to present their case.

The court also addressed the conflict of evidence regarding the production of a solicitor's invoice. It preferred the Inspector's and Council's recollections that no such invoice was formally produced or considered. Even if it had been, the invoice would not have materially affected the Inspector's conclusions, as it did not prove the outcome of searches or negate the likelihood that the appellants knew or ought to have known of the lack of planning permission.

The Inspector's findings that the appellants likely had some knowledge or should have made inquiries were reasonable inferences based on the evidence and the appellants' connections to the developer. The court rejected the contention that the Inspector had applied an unfair or inconsistent approach.

Finally, the court exercised its discretion to refuse relief, noting that the appellants had already achieved the practical effect of their appeals and that further delay or remittal would serve no useful purpose.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Inspector's decision. The period for compliance with the enforcement notices was not extended. The appellants' procedural and substantive challenges were rejected as unfounded. The decision confirms that appellants bear responsibility for fully presenting their cases, particularly when professionally represented, and that informal hearings, while less formal, still require adequate notice and opportunity to respond. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling primarily affirms the proper exercise of discretion and procedural fairness in the context of planning enforcement appeals.