John Ward v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Permission to appeal an enforcement notice decision requires a real prospect of success or another compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The appellate court does not re-evaluate planning evidence merely because the appellant disagrees with the inspector’s conclusions. An inspector must analyse the evidence, resolve material inconsistencies, and give cogent reasons for preferring one body of evidence over another. That approach differs from a case where unchallenged evidence was rejected without reasons. Findings on abandonment are lawful where the inspector identifies and applies the relevant tests and reaches rational conclusions on the evidence.

The claimant sought permission under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 289, to appeal an appointed inspector’s dismissal of an enforcement notice appeal. The notice alleged a material change of use to a construction contractor’s depot. The inspector found that earlier uses had ceased, that the relevant use had been abandoned, and that the alleged breach had not acquired immunity from enforcement action.

The proposed appeal challenged the inspector’s treatment of witness, photographic and other evidence, the application of the abandonment tests, the reasons given, and conclusions under section 57(4). The central issue was whether any ground had a real prospect of success.

1. Permission test. Under CPR rule 52.6, permission could be granted only if the appeal had a real prospect of success or there was some other compelling reason for it to be heard. The claimant bore the civil burden of showing that the breach of planning control had become lawful.
2. Assessment of evidence. The inspector had considered the evidence for each relevant period, identified contradictions, assessed the photographic material alongside the witness evidence, and explained the weight given to competing accounts. He was entitled to form his own judgment and was not required to record every detail or disclose his provisional thinking during the inquiry.
3. Gabbitas. The case was distinguishable from Gabbitas v SSE and Newham LBC, where the inspector had rejected uncontradicted evidence without giving reasons. Here, the inspector gave clear and rational reasons for preferring particular evidence and for rejecting or qualifying other accounts.
4. Abandonment. The inspector correctly identified and applied the legal tests on abandonment. His findings that the builder’s use had ceased by 1999, that no intervening use had been established, and that there had been 20 years of non-use were open to him on the evidence. The related challenge under section 57(4) was parasitic on the unsuccessful abandonment challenge.
5. None of the grounds was arguable or had a realistic prospect of success. Permission to appeal was refused on all grounds. Counsel were directed to draw up an agreed order.

The judgment itself concerned an application for permission to appeal an appointed inspector’s decision dated 8 August 2024 dismissing an enforcement notice appeal. Permission was refused by the High Court on all grounds.