Ioannou v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

On an enforcement-notice appeal, the planning inspector’s power to grant permission under ground (a), or on the deemed application, is confined to the matters stated in the notice as constituting the breach. It cannot be used to authorise a substantially different development. Ground (f), however, may permit variation of remedial steps directed to injury to amenity under section 173(4)(b), potentially enabling an alternative scheme where the statutory limits are satisfied. The inspector must address that power where it is materially raised. Whether the alternative is substantially different is a matter of fact and degree. The decision letter must contain the inspector’s reasons. A later witness statement cannot operate as a second decision letter or repair legally deficient reasoning.

The appellant challenged an enforcement notice concerning the unauthorised conversion of a single dwelling into five self-contained flats. The inspector dismissed the appeals under grounds (a) and (f), refusing permission for the five-flat use and retaining remedial requirements directed to restoring a single dwelling. The inspector recognised that a three-flat scheme was preferable to a house in multiple occupation, but left that scheme to a separate planning application.

The central issues were whether the inspector could authorise or secure the three-flat scheme under sections 177(1) and 177(5), or by varying the notice under ground (f), and whether the inspector’s later witness statement could explain the decision letter.

1. Appeal allowed. The inspector’s decision was legally flawed because it failed to consider whether the power under section 173(4)(b) could be used to vary the remedial steps so as to address injury to amenity and bring about the proposed three-flat scheme.
2. Under ground (a), and on the deemed planning application under section 177(5), the inspector’s jurisdiction is confined by section 177(1)(a) to the matters stated in the enforcement notice as constituting the breach. Permission cannot be granted for works which are neither those matters nor part of them. The three-flat scheme required internal works beyond the matters alleged in the notice and therefore could not be achieved solely through ground (a) or the deemed application.
3. Ground (f) raised a different question. The notice could potentially be varied under section 173(4)(b) if the proposed steps remedied injury to amenity caused by the breach. The judge expressed reservations about whether inadequate amenity created by the development itself falls within that phrase, but accepted that, if the Secretary of State’s submission was correct, the inspector had to consider the power. The inspector had not done so.
4. The Tapecrown Ltd v First Secretary of State principle gave the inspector wide remedial powers, subject to the statutory wording. The proposed alternative had been placed before the inspector, so the inspector was not being asked to search for an unformulated solution. Whether the scheme was significantly different from, rather than essentially the same as, the development in the notice was a matter of fact and degree. No single conclusion was compelled.
5. The inspector’s witness statement was inadmissible. The decision letter had to contain the statutory reasons and the statement contradicted, rather than elucidated, the reasoning expressed there. Inspectors should not provide a backdoor second decision letter. The matter was remitted for reconsideration, and relief was not refused merely because the appellant could also have appealed the local planning authority’s refusal of the separate planning application.

• Planning Inspector: dismissed the material enforcement-notice appeals under grounds (a) and (f), refused permission for the five-flat use, and extended the compliance period to six months.
• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal because the inspector failed to consider a material statutory power under ground (f). The terms of relief were to be addressed separately.