Agriculture Monthly Review: April 2011

  

In the past, these reviews have occasionally referred to instances where members of the public have attempted to circumvent the Town & Country Planning regime within which we all live. Farmers, in particular, benefit from special rules which allow certain development without the need for full consent. A year or two ago, a farmer built a new house in his crew yard but screened it with bales of hay. No-one knew the house was there until, some four of more years later, the bales of hay were taken down and he claimed that he was outside the four year period during which the Local Authority could take enforcement proceedings.  On that occasion, the Court decided that the period of four years did not start to run until the last bale was taken down.  This is probably a rather loose interpretation of the rules but undoubtedly reflected the generally held belief that the person should not be allowed to benefit from his or her wrong.

 

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court gave its judgment in a remarkably similar instance which occurred in the Welwyn Hatfield local authority area of Hertfordshire.   In this case, Mr Beesley had been rather more thorough than the applicant in the case above.   Mr Beesley went to the trouble of obtaining planning consent to construct a hay barn on open land in the green belt.    Following the grant of the consent, he proceeded to construct what was, to all appearances, the hay barn for which planning consent had been sought and given.   No problem there then! However, appearances can deceive and what Mr Beesley had in fact built within the barn was a complete dwelling house with living rooms, bedrooms, bathrooms and even a gym.   He and his family moved in and lived there for some four years, hidden by the hay barn. The Council remained blissfully unaware that the house had even been built, let alone used.   After being there for four years, Mr Beesley applied for a certificate of lawful use taking advantage (as he thought) of a provision in the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 that no enforcement action can be taken after the period of four years following a change of use to use as a single dwelling house. The Local Authority granted the certificate and this was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal.

 

Clearly the view was taken that there had been a change of use thereby achieving immunity from enforcement. However, the Council appealed to the Supreme Court and the judgment went against Mr Beesley on two counts. 

 

First, it was decided that there had, in fact, never been a change of use. The property was built as a dwelling house and was used as a dwelling house; it was never used as a barn.   Secondly, the Court took the view that Mr Beesley had deliberately embarked on a course of action intended to deceive the Council.

 

What he did was not overtly criminal in nature but was nevertheless designed to subvert the planning process.   The view was taken that if Mr Beesley was allowed to succeed in his deceit, it would undermine the public’s confidence in the planning system and, in effect, his conduct took him outside the protection that the legislation gave to members of the public.

 

In reality, Mr Beesley’s action was breathtaking in its scope and scale and all those of us who dutifully conform to the rules and regulations which govern our daily lives will applaud the decision taken by the Supreme Court.