Planning control - enforcement periods

How much time is available to a local planning authority to enforce breaches of planning control?

See section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990:

“(1) Where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the carrying out without planning permission of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date on which the operations were substantially completed.”

“(2) Where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the change of use of any building to use as a single dwellinghouse, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date of the breach.”

“(3) In the case of any other breach of planning control, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of ten years beginning with the date of the breach."

In Welwyn Hatfield Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 26 an applicant for planning permission was granted permission for the erection of a hay barn. Instead, he built a house. The applicant and his wife moved into the property on 9 August 2002. On 15 August 2006, he applied under section 191 TCPA 1990 for a certificate of lawfulness of existing use. The process was described by the Court of Appeal as “deliberate deceit”. The building had been given the external appearance of a barn, but had been fitted out internally as a dwelling. However, the Court of Appeal unanimously held that the local authority had lost its ability to enforce a breach of planning control, since the applicant’s change of use fell squarely within section 171B(2).

Lord Justice Richards said: “the lesson for local planning authorities is clear. When checking whether a building has been built in accordance with planning permission and is being used in accordance with the permitted use, they need to look carefully at the inside of the building and not just at the exterior. External appearances can be highly misleading, as this case shows, and authorities need to be alert to the possibility of deception. The legislation in its existing form is open to abuse. Whether it should be amended so as to prevent dishonest advantage being taken of the shorter time limit under section 171B(1) and (2) is, as I have said, a matter for Parliament.”