Yasemin Ermis v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

On a statutory planning appeal, an inspector must give intelligible and adequate reasons on the principal important controversial issues. The requirement is flexible and does not demand a response to every argument. Evidence described in planning guidance as precise and unambiguous is not a free-standing threshold. The decision-maker must assess its quality and then decide whether, on the balance of probabilities, it proves continuous residential use for the statutory period. Where the case is advanced through discrete tenancy periods, the inspector must identify the period or periods not proved and explain why. Treating an assured shorthold tenancy as requiring a further written agreement to roll over, contrary to its express periodic-tenancy clause, is an error of law.

This was an appeal under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against an Inspector’s decision on an enforcement notice concerning an unauthorised roof conversion into a flat. The Inspector dismissed the appeal subject to extending the compliance period from six to 12 months.

The appellant had permission to challenge the decision only on whether the Inspector gave adequate reasons for rejecting the ground (d) case and whether he erred in law about the rollover of an assured shorthold tenancy. The central issues were whether the Inspector identified and resolved the disputed tenancy periods, and whether the absence of further written agreements could undermine proof of continuous residential use.

1. Outcome. The appeal succeeded on grounds (ii) and (iii). The Inspector’s decision was set aside in the relevant respect, the appellant’s appeal against the enforcement notice was remitted to the Secretary of State for redetermination, and the Secretary of State was ordered to pay £35,000 in costs.
2. Applicable approach. A section 289 appeal is confined to legal error. The court applied the principles in St Modwen Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2017] EWCA Civ 1643, Bloor Homes East Midlands Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] PTSR 1283 and South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] UKHL 33. An inspector’s reasons must be intelligible and adequate, disclose how the principal important controversial issues of law and fact were resolved, and be read fairly and without hypercritical scrutiny.
3. Ground (d). Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the appellant had to prove on the balance of probabilities four years’ continuous residential use by the relevant date, without subsequent loss of that use. References in planning guidance to evidence being precise and unambiguous did not create a separate evidential test. The Inspector had to assess that evidence and then decide whether it established the claimed use.
4. Adequacy of reasons. The case was advanced by reference to discrete tenancy periods. The Inspector identified inconsistencies and evidential gaps but did not state whether Ms LB had occupied the flat between June 2019 and June 2020, or whether Mr EE had occupied it between June 2020 and July 2022. He therefore failed to resolve a principal important controversial issue. Paragraph 22 also disclosed an error of law: the third tenancy agreement expressly provided for continuation as a monthly contractual periodic tenancy, so a further written agreement was not required.
5. Further observations. The court did not need to determine the argument based on Impey v Secretary of State for the Environment (1980) 47 P&CR 157, because it had not been advanced before the Inspector and was not a principal issue requiring reasons. The court also stated, obiter, that it would not have accepted an inevitable-outcome argument because the error might have affected the assessment of related evidence, referring to Simplex GE (Holdings) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [2017] PTSR 1041.

1. High Court (Planning Court): Permission to appeal was granted on grounds (ii) and (iii) on 27 February 2026. The appeal succeeded on both grounds and was remitted to the Secretary of State for redetermination, with costs awarded to the appellant.
2. Secretary of State’s Inspector: On 21 October 2025 the Inspector dismissed the enforcement appeal, upheld the enforcement notice subject to extending the compliance period from six to 12 months, and refused planning permission on the deemed application.