Planning appeal decision
38 Abbey Road, WALTHAM CROSS, EN8 7LQ
- Authority
- Broxbourne Borough Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Boffin D
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The ground (e) appeal – Appeal A: whether copies of the EN were served as required by sections 172(2) and 172(3) of the 1990 Act
- The ground (d) appeal – Appeal A: whether, at the date the notice was issued, no enforcement action could be taken in respect of the breach
- The ground (f) appeal – Appeal A: whether the steps required by the EN exceed what is necessary to remedy the breach of planning control
- The ground (b) and (c) appeals – Appeal B: whether the allegation has occurred as a matter of fact and whether those matters constitute a breach of planning control
What decided it
The decisive factor in both appeals was the Inspector's factual finding, on the balance of probability, as to when and whether a material change of use to a separate dwelling/dwellings had occurred, which determined immunity (Appeal A) and breach (Appeal B).
Framework references: 60
Judgments cited: SSLUHC v Caldwell & Timberstore [2024] EWCA Civ 467; Murfitt v SSE (1980) 40 P. & C.R. 254
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®