skip navigation

Latest News

  Conduct Determines Legal Ownership 
  Government to Outlaw Squatting in Residential Premises 
  House Sales - Replying to Enquiries 
  Wind Turbines - New Planning Regulations on the Way 
  Court Reversal for Vendor Who Didn't Know What He Had Sold 
  I Hear You Knocking (and Drilling and Sawing...) 
  Nuisance Claim Against Landfill Company Fails 
  Buyer Loses Flat Because of Vendor's Error 
  Landlords Face Costs in Disputes 
  Misplaced Fence Leads to £20,000 Bill 
More...

Man Wins Planning Battle Over House Disguised as a Barn


 

A recent planning case in the Court of Appeal produced what the judge described as a ‘surprising outcome’.

Alan Beesley had been granted planning permission by Welwyn Hatfield Council to build a barn on green belt land, for agricultural use only. The Council granted his request on the basis that his application stated that the building was to be used only for storing hay and would not require sewage disposal. In fact, Mr Beesley never used the building as a barn but built a three-bedroom single-dwelling house inside the outer structure and connected the dwelling to the mains drainage system.

After four years of living in the ‘barn’, Mr Beesley applied, under Section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, for a certificate of lawfulness for existing use. Under current legislation, there is a four-year time limit for local planning authorities to enforce planning control in domestic dwellings cases.

The Court of Appeal ruled that although Mr Beesley had clearly intended to deceive the Council in order to build a domestic dwelling on green belt land, the case should not be treated any differently from one where planning permission had been obtained in good faith and there was a genuine alteration to the original plans during the course of building work.

As it stands, the law does not differentiate in any way between circumstances in which planning permission is obtained in good faith and those where the planning application is intended to deceive the planning authorities. Whilst acknowledging that its decision would appear ‘incomprehensible’ to decent, law-abiding citizens, the Court had to rule in Mr Beesley’s favour. It was for Parliament to amend the legislation should it see fit.

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.
 
 
Home | About Us | Our Services | Our People | Careers | Library | Contact Us | Help

6 King Street, Hereford, HR4 9BS Tel: 01432 352121

13A Broad Street, Leominster, Hereford, HR6 8TZ Tel: 01568 615905

© TA Matthews Solicitors. All rights reserved.

Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)

Hereford SRA Number: 52926

Leominster SRA Number: 52927

Legal Disclaimer

[smaller] Change text size [larger]