Paramaguru v London Borough of Ealing

Magistrates may state a case under Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 section 111(1) where the defendant’s guilty plea has finally determined the offence, even though confiscation and sentence remain outstanding. For Class C4 use, “residents” bears its ordinary meaning and includes children of every age. The statutory cross-reference to the HMO definition in Housing Act 2004 reinforces that construction. No age-based or dependency-based exclusion applies where no statutory calculation rules have been made. If an HMO exceeds six residents, it falls outside Class C4 and planning permission is required, but the local planning authority retains a discretion whether enforcement is expedient.

The appellant appealed by way of case stated against a preliminary ruling of West London magistrates. He had been charged with breaching a planning enforcement notice requiring cessation of use of his property as a large HMO. The preliminary issue was whether the magistrates had jurisdiction to state a case after the appellant pleaded guilty and the matter was committed to the Crown Court for confiscation and sentence. The substantive issue was whether children under 18 counted as “residents” for the purposes of Class C4 in the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

1. Jurisdiction to state a case. The appellant’s guilty plea, following the preliminary ruling, finally determined the breach of the enforcement notice for the purposes of Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 section 111(1). The subsequent committal to the Crown Court under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 section 70 for confiscation and sentence did not permit the conviction to be reopened. Streames v Copping was applied, while Gillan v Director of Public Prosecutions was distinguished because it concerned ongoing Crown Court proceedings.
2. Meaning of “residents”. The ordinary meaning of “resident” is clear and includes children, whether dependent or otherwise. Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 provides that, subject to the stated exception, an HMO for Class C4 has the same meaning as in Housing Act 2004 section 254. Sections 254 and 258 treat children as persons forming part of a household. Accordingly, children count as residents for Class C4.
3. Age and calculation. Section 264 of the Housing Act 2004 permits rules to disregard persons under a specified age or treat them as fractions. No such rules had been made. A child of any age therefore counted as one person. Excluding dependent, infant or very young children would introduce uncertainty and conflict with the statutory scheme.
4. Purpose and enforcement. The construction was consistent with the protective purpose of HMO legislation, particularly the protection of families with young children. If more than six residents occupy the property, the use falls outside Class C4 and planning permission is required. Nevertheless, under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 172(1)(b), enforcement remains discretionary and depends on expediency having regard to the development plan and other material considerations.
5. The modified question was answered in the affirmative. The appeal was dismissed.

The judgment does not state a prior appellate decision. It records a preliminary ruling by justices sitting at Ealing Magistrates’ Court on 22 June 2017 and determines the resulting appeal by way of case stated.