news

Alan Beesley had applied to his local authority in Hertfordshire to build a hay barn.  What was constructed however, was a three bedroomed dwelling with a gym disguised as a hay barn.  The planning application stated that no mains sewage drainage was required but the property was connected to the main sewer. 

After living in the property for four years Mr Beesley applied for a certificate of lawfulness for existing use on the grounds that the four-year time limit for enforcement barred legal action against him.  His application went on to add that nothing in the legislation precluded him from making the application despite the fact that he had deliberately deceived the local authority.

In delivering the lead judgment Lord Justice Richards stated that, “The question is whether the situation, viewed objectively, is one for which the statute has provided a four-year time limit or a ten-year time limit. If it is considered that there should be a different outcome in a case of dishonesty or deliberate concealment, it is for Parliament to amend the legislation accordingly.”

Lord Justice Mummery said in his judgment that decent law-abiding citizens would find the ruling “incomprehensible” but Mr Beesley’s appeal had to be allowed on legal grounds.

He went on to say that it was a “surprising outcome” that “a public authority, deceived into granting planning permission by a dishonest planning application, can be required by law to issue an official certificate to the culprit consolidating the fruits of the fraud”.

He added that there was nothing in the planning legislation that precluded relying on time limits by reason of false representations.

However, it is clear that the courts will treat this loophole very strictly as shown in a recent related ruling at the High Court.  A Surrey farmer who hid a ‘castle’ behind a stack of straw bales lost his challenge against Reigate and Banstead Council.

The farmer removed the bales and tarpaulin after the four-year limit had expired, but Sir Thayne Forbes, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, ruled that the act of removing them could be regarded as part of building operations and therefore the four year limit had not expired.