Shaman, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lambeth

For a temporary-use permitted development right, the decisive period runs from the commencement of the temporary use until the land reverts to its normal use. The decision-maker must identify both dates. The period cannot be limited by treating later activities as separate merely because they may obtain planning permission in future. A possible future grant of planning permission is irrelevant to whether enforcement action may be taken when lawfulness is assessed. Where the use described in the application will exceed the permitted 28-day period, a certificate of lawfulness must be refused.

The claimant challenged Lambeth’s grant of a certificate of lawfulness under section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for temporary festival use of Brockwell Park. The application described preparatory works beginning on 11 May 2025, events continuing until 1 June, and related infrastructure remaining until full site load-out on 16 June. The claimant argued that the proposed use therefore lasted 37 days and exceeded the permitted development right in Schedule 2, Part 4, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. The central issue was whether the authority lawfully assessed the duration of the proposed use.

1. The claim succeeded. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted, the claim was allowed, and the certificate of lawfulness was quashed.
2. Under section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the authority had to determine whether the proposed use would be lawful if instituted at the date of the application. Lawfulness depended on the definition in section 191(2), including whether enforcement action could be taken.
3. The permitted development right in Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 4, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 permits temporary use for no more than 28 days in a calendar year. Following Ramsey v Secretary of State for the Environment [2002] EWCA Civ 118, duration was the critical factor. The authority had to identify both when the temporary use began and when the land reverted to its normal use.
4. On the information supplied, the use began with the erection of fencing and associated works on 11 May. It continued while the event infrastructure remained in place and did not revert to ordinary public-park use until full load-out on 16 June. The proposed use therefore lasted 37 days.
5. The officer erred by discounting the period after 1 June on the basis that planning permission might later authorise the Lambeth Country Show. A possible future grant of planning permission was legally irrelevant to whether enforcement action could be taken. The alternative suggestion that the use would cease on the 28th day was also inconsistent with the use described in the application and made the decision irrational.
6. Relief was not refused under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The outcome would almost certainly have been different had the error not occurred.

The claim was issued on 17 April 2025. The High Court directed an expedited rolled-up hearing combining permission and the substantive judicial review. The claim was allowed and the certificate was quashed.