Langmead v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

An appeal against an enforcement notice is confined by the breach alleged in the notice. It is not equivalent to an appeal against refusal of planning permission. Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 174 and 177, an inspector must focus on the relevant breach and may not grant or modify permission so as to determine matters outside that scope. An inspector is not required to investigate an alternative scheme of mitigation which has not been clearly advanced and which is based on a misconception of the permission available on the appeal. A planning assessment directed to year-round retention of caravans could not require consideration of mitigation for a different, seasonal scheme where another condition independently required their winter removal.

The claimant challenged an inspector’s dismissal of his appeal against an enforcement notice concerning 21 caravans on agricultural land in the South Downs National Park. The notice alleged breach of a condition restricting occupation to seasonal workers on the farm. A further condition required caravans to be removed between November and February.

The claimant argued that the inspector had failed to consider landscape and visual mitigation, including fencing and tree and hedge planting. The inspector rejected the ground (a) appeal and refused the deemed planning application, finding that the mitigation evidence addressed an impermissible year-round scheme and that the enforcement appeal did not extend to varying the separate winter-removal condition. The issue was whether the inspector had been required to consider the mitigation as supporting a seasonal scheme for workers unconnected with the farm.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The inspector’s dismissal of the ground (a) appeal and refusal of the deemed planning application disclosed no error of law.
2. An enforcement notice appeal must be determined by reference to the wording of the notice and the activity alleged to constitute the breach. It is not an appeal against refusal of planning permission. The inspector was entitled to expect precision from a professionally represented appellant. The court applied the general approach in Bloor Holmes East Midlands Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC 754 (Admin): an inspector’s decision must be intelligible and adequate, but need address only the main issues, and the court must not conduct a planning merits review.
3. The enforcement notice concerned condition 4 only. Condition 5 was outside the appeal and remained in force. Consequently, the inspector could not permit caravans to remain on the land during the winter, whether or not condition 4 was discharged. Section 177(4) permitted substitution of a condition for condition 4, but did not enlarge the subject matter of the appeal.
4. The landscape assessment proceeded on the mistaken assumption that the caravans could remain throughout the year. Its mitigation proposals addressed the supposed adverse effects of winter presence and year-round occupation, not the effects of seasonal occupation by workers unconnected with the farm. The inspector was therefore entitled to regard the comparison with removal as irrelevant and to decline to consider the mitigation.
5. The suggested alternative seasonal scheme had not been articulated before the inspector. In light of Tapecrown Ltd v First Secretary of State [2007] No. 2 P&CR 7 and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v Ioannou [2015] [1P&CR10], the alternative was not so obvious that the inspector had to formulate and assess it herself. The claim was dismissed. Costs were to be addressed if not agreed.

High Court (Administrative Court): The claimant appealed against the decision of the respondent’s inspector dated 12 September 2017. The appeal was dismissed.