Pickavant v Charnwood Borough Council

A local planning authority is not, in principle, prevented from recovering the reasonable cost of enforcement works merely because contractors performed less work than initially contemplated. A reasonable tender may remain payable where the contractors attended and undertook the contracted demolition.

At the permission stage, the Court of Appeal considers whether the lower court erred. An issue raised for the first time at the permission hearing, absent from the pleadings, excluded by case management, and not included in the notice of appeal, will not ordinarily justify permission, particularly where the necessary evidence was not before the lower court.

Pickavant v Charnwood Borough Council concerned the recovery of demolition costs following a planning enforcement notice. The notice required Mr Pickavant to remove a newly erected building, including its foundations. The council instructed contractors, selected through a tender process, to carry out the work and sought to recover the cost from him.

His Honour Judge Brunning made an order on 14 June 2000. Mr Pickavant applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal, with an appeal to follow if permission was granted. He argued that the contractors had not removed all the foundations and that the council should have delayed demolition while a further planning application was considered. The central issues were whether either argument disclosed an error by the judge or a serious basis for an appeal.

1. Disposition. Lord Justice Schiemann refused permission to appeal. Lord Justice Latham agreed. The application was refused with costs of £3,000.
2. Demolition costs. The lower judge had found that the council’s tender process produced a reasonable price. The fact that the contractors may have done less concerning the foundations than they could or should have done did not, without more, entitle the recipient of the enforcement notice to pay less. The contractors had attended to perform the demolition job, and any decision by the council’s officer to limit the work did not deprive them of payment. Mr Pickavant identified no principled reason why the council could not charge the enforcement costs to him.
3. New planning application. The argument that demolition should have been postponed pending a further planning application had not been pleaded or argued before the judge. The case management conference had restricted the issues, and the point was not included in the notice of appeal. It was formulated for the first time at the permission hearing, with no evidence showing what had been said or what might have happened. The Court of Appeal’s task was to determine whether the judge had fallen into error, and it could not identify any such error on that material.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Application for permission to appeal from the order made by His Honour Judge Brunning on 14 June 2000 refused, with costs of £3,000.