0
In R (Jones) v Isle of Anglesey CC [2024] EWHC 2582 (Admin), Mould J provided guidance on when a material change of use will commence for the purposes of s.56 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
In this case a developer had obtained hybrid planning permission for a large holiday park (the Permission), which included outline planning permission for substantial operational development and full permission for the change of use of various buildings, including one building (the Bailiff’s Tower) to a visitor’s centre. Both the outline and full elements of the Permission were subjected to separate conditions requiring their commencement before a certain date.
The outline element of the Permission was commenced in time. In order to commence the full element of the Permission the developer carried out internal works to fit out the Bailiff’s Tower (previously a cricket clubhouse) for use as a visitors centre. The works affected just one room of the building and comprised decoration and the placement of tables and noticeboards. A freestanding external sign was also erected. As the deadline for commencement approached it became clear that Covid-19 regulations in place at the time would prevent the use of the building as visitors centre. The developer wrote to the council to make it clear that they did not intend to operate the building in breach of those restrictions and, as a result, no visitors ever used the building. The building was then closed shortly after the commencement date.
The Claimant argued (among other things) that the Local Planning Authority (LPA) had erred in finding that the developer had carried out the material change of use of the building prior to the deadline for doing so. There could not have been a change of use in the absence of any use and, so the claimant argued, the absence of any intention to use the building as a visitor’s centre, such use being prohibited at the material time. Mould J rejected this argument. Relying on previous judgments of the Court in Impey and Welwyn, he noted that a change of use could take place prior to actual use of a building and that in all the facts of this case, the LPA was entitled to take the view that it had.
Mould J also rejected a separate argument on the part of the Claimant relating to the interpretation of the Permission, which raised interesting issues relating to the nature of hybrid permissions, particularly where they have multiple commencement conditions.
The claimant was represented by Ben Fullbrook, instructed by Richard Buxton Solicitors.
