Shortt v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The meaning of “dependant” in a planning occupancy condition is context-specific. It does not necessarily require financial dependency. Where the condition includes a deeming provision extending to a widow or widower, its wording may indicate that spouses and minor children can qualify through ordinary family services and care, even without financial contribution. The court must construe the condition as a whole and objectively. A lawful development certificate based on immunity from enforcement requires use contrary to the lawful planning permission throughout the relevant period. The possibility of enforcement during that period is a consequence of establishing unlawful use, not an independent ultimate test.

The claimants sought to quash an inspector’s dismissal of their appeal under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 195(1). The appeal concerned a certificate of lawfulness for occupation of a dwelling subject to a condition limiting occupation to agricultural workers and their dependants, expressly including a widow or widower. The claimants argued that the condition had been breached for more than ten years because the agricultural worker had made no financial contribution to her husband or children. The inspector rejected that construction and concluded that the family members remained dependants. The central issue was the meaning of “dependants” in this particular planning condition.

1. The claim was dismissed. The inspector was right to conclude that there had been no breach of the planning condition for the requisite ten-year period.
2. The inspector had misstated the effect of Swale Borough Council v First Secretary of State and Lee [2005] EWCA Civ 1568. The relevant question is whether the land was used contrary to its lawful use during the requisite period, so that enforcement became impossible. The possibility that enforcement could have been taken during that period is a consequence of other findings, not an independent ultimate test. That error was not determinative.
3. The word “dependant” has no single meaning applicable in every statutory or legal context. Its meaning is context-specific. Financial dependency is a common element, but it is not invariably required.
4. Fawcett Properties Limited v Buckingham County Council [1961] AC 636 did not establish categorically that financial dependency is required. The relevant condition differed because it expressly provided that dependants included a widow or widower. Objectively construed as a whole, that wording would be strained if a financially independent spouse could occupy after the worker’s death but not during the worker’s life.
5. In this context, “dependants” was sufficiently broad to include the agricultural worker’s husband and minor children, who received ordinary family services and care from her. Enforcement action could not properly have been taken against them.
6. The decision was confined to construction of this particular planning condition. The court declined to determine the meaning of “dependants” in the statutory contexts referred to in the judgment.

This was a first-instance application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 challenging an inspector’s decision on an appeal under section 195(1). The application was dismissed.