Property Law Library
Boundaries and adverse possession
Deeds, plans and boundary features
Presumptions
Boundary agreements
Adverse possession
Adverse possession and Pye v Graham
Land Registration Act 2002
Consent
Acknowledgement of title
Estoppel
Highways
Human rights
Miscellaneous
Multiple parcels
Criminal offence
Experts
Party walls
Tidal waters
T-marks
Trees and hedges
Business lease renewal
Telecommunications Code
Does the Act apply?
Contracting out
Surrender
Section 25 notices
Counternotice
Section 26 requests
Ground (b)
Ground (c)
Ground (f)
Ground (g)
Rent
New lease terms
Easements on renewal
Compensation
Procedure
Insolvency of landlord
Registration of claim
Reform of Part II
Commonhold
Co-ownership and estoppel
Co-ownership disputes - Stack v Dowden
Partnership
Equitable accounting
Pallant v Morgan
Proprietary estoppel
Yeomans Row v Cobbe
Yeomans and s2 of 1989 Act
Assurance and reliance - Thorner
Laches and estoppel
Satisfying the equity
Tax
Trusts of Land etc Act 1996
Easements
Abandonment
Commons and rights of way
Construing rights of way
Extinguisment
Gardens
Extent of grant
Illegality
Implied and s62
Increasing the burden
Parking
Prescription
Profits a prendre
Repair to right of way
Registration of easements
Right to light
Excluding the right
Injunction?
Damages
Substantial interference
Landlord and tenant (general)
Assignment
Break clauses
Notices
Material compliance and breaches
Miscellaneous
Repayment of rent
Yielding up
Chattels and fixtures
Business rates
Consents
Tenant's request
Landlord's response
Reasonable refusal
Conditions
Alterations
Underletting
Construction of lease terms
Dilapidations
Breach
Landlord's obligation
Schedules and notices
Standard of repair
Damages and s18 cap
Miscellaneous
Discrimination
Disclaimer
Distress
Estoppel
Forfeiture
Rent claims
Other cases
Section 146 notices
Waiver
Registration gap
Court procedure
Relief
Unlawful forfeiture
Law reform
Goods left on the premises
Indemnity
Insolvency
L & T (Covenants) Act 1995
Licences
Management regulations
Merger
Nuisance
Notices - service
Pre-emption clause
Rent
Rent review
Construction
Presumption of reality
Time of essence
Rent review notices
Arbitration
Rent suspension
Restraint of trade
Service charges and insurance (general)
Set-off
Subletting, sharing possession or occupation
Surrender by operation of law
Surrender and re-grant
Tenancy at will
Uncertain term
Unlawful eviction
Long leases
Acquisition orders
Enfranchisement
House?
Forms
Qualifications
Notices
Miscellaneous
Enfranchisement proceedings
Terms of the transfer
Valuation (deferment rates and hope value)
Valuation (other points)
Forfeiture restrictions
Ground rent notices
Management
Right to manage
Manager under 1987 Act
Part 1 of the 1954 Act
Right of first refusal
Developers beware
Service and administration charges and insurance
Construction of the lease
Statutory control - reasonableness
Service charge demands
Administration charges
Summary of leaseholder's rights
Insurance
Managing agents
Reserve funds
The 18-month rule
Consultation of tenants
Compromise of service charge dispute
Legal costs
Transfer to First-tier Tribunal
Variation of lease terms
Mobile homes and caravans
Mortgages
Negligent valuation
Bank all monies charge
Charging orders
Civil Recovery Order
Consumer Credit Act 1974
Consumer Credit Act 2006
Clog on the equity of redemeption
Facility agreement
Forgery
Interest
Limitation and shortfall
Marshalling
Misrepresentation and affirmation
Money claim
Mortgage indemnity policies
Enforcement
Mortgage possession
Costs
Mortgage arrears protocol
Time to sell
Miscellaneous
Enforcement
Negligent financial advice
Priorities
Proving the loan
Regulation
Sale
Effect of sale on possession
Duties on sale
Orders for sale
Sale and leaseback
Solicitor's breach of trust and negligence
Subrogation
Terms
Tenants of mortgagees
Undue influence
Unfair contract terms
Nuisance and trespass
Abating the nuisance
Damages - account of profits
Damages - human rights
Defects in neighbouring property
Defences
Fire
Noise
Self-help
Trees
Trespass
Water
Planning
Appeals procedure
Change of use
Children
Compensation
Compulsory purchase
Conditions
Development
Definition
Development plans
Design and access statements
General permitted development
Lawful development certificates
Environmental
Enforcement
Enforcement notices
Deceit
Deemed permission
Estoppel
User for 4 or 10 years
Stop notices
Judicial review
Localism
Material considerations
Permission
Policy consultation
National policy
Property litigation and ADR
Automatic stay
Business leases
Compromise
Costs
Damages in lieu of injunction
Declaration
Expert evidence
Harassment by proceedings
Property Chamber
Land Registry Adjudicator
Residential Property Tribunal
Mediation
Party wall awards
Tomlin orders
Unilateral notices
Property transactions
Commercial lease code
Contaminated land
Contract
Deeds
Defective Premises Act
Deposits
Electronic Communications Code
EPCs in Commercial Properties
Execution
Failure to complete
Gifts of land
Guarantees and indemnities
Land registration
Local government
Misrepresentation and answers to enquiries
Money laundering
Notice to complete
Options
Overage
Planning obligations
Perpetuities
Positive covenants
Rectification
Rent charges
Searches and enquiries
Solicitors
Title
Undertakings
Unjust enrichment
Vendor's lien
Writing - s2 of 1989 Act
Possession claims
Protection from Eviction Act
Trespassers
Bankruptcy
Disability discrimination defences
Human Rights Act defences
Weaver
Procedure
Orders for possession
Costs
Warrants
Suspending warrants
Setting aside
Public access to land
Commons
Right to roam
Town and village greens
The main cases
Cancellation of registration
Inhabitants of locality
User as of right
Residential tenancies
Anti-social behaviour
Asbo or injunction
Family Intervention Tenancies
Injunctions under 1996 Act
Possession orders
Committal
Assured tenancies
Assured shortholds
Section 20 Notices
Section 21 Notices
Boats
Housing disrepair claims
Liability
Damages for disrepair
Costs in disrepair cases
Homeless persons
Human rights
Introductory tenancies
Licences - Bruton Tenancies
Neighbouring Noises
Notice to quit
Proceeds of crime
Reform
Rent Act 1977
Rent books
Right to buy
Secure tenancies
Tenancy deposit
Tenant's notice to quit
Tolerated trespassers
Unfair contract terms
Unlawful eviction
Restrictive covenants
Benefit of covenants
Burden
Competition
Consent to development
Enforcing covenants
Interpretation - breach
Modification and discharge
Overage
Variation under s610 of 1985 Act
Monthly Update
Boundaries and adverse possession.
Business lease renewal.
Co-ownership and estoppel.
Easements.
Landlord and tenant (general).
Long leases.
Mobile homes.
Mortgages.
Nuisance and trespass.
Planning.
Property litigation and ADR.
Property transactions.
Public access to land.
Residential tenancies.
Restrictive covenants.
Free summaries
Property Mediation
Property Mediators
Alan Langleben
Beverly-Ann Rogers
David Blackburn
David Small
Gary Webber
Jacky Lewis
Jacqui Joyce
Jeremy Manuel
Jonathan Arkush
John de Waal
Louisa Weinstein
Marc Beaumont
Mark Hacking
Mark Summerfield
Martin Banham-Hall
Martyn Liberson
Paul Randolph
Paul Newman
Sara Benbow
Simon Williams
Stephen Shaw
Stephanie Tozer
Timothy Russ
Tactics and strategy at mediation
Training
Conferences and courses
In-house courses
Co-ownership
Drafting
Covenants
Dilapidation claims
Easements
Housing disrepair.
Insolvency
Managing Leases
Misrepresentation and answers to enquiries
Mixed Use Properties
Mortgages
Overage
Remedies in property disputes
Residential leases
Restrictive covenants
Sale Contracts
Section 2 of the 1989 Act
Twenty Topical Traps
Unreasonable refusal to consent
Information
Contact
Barristers
Solicitors
Experts
Books
Boundaries and party walls.
Commonhold.
Commercial leases.
Commons and village greens.
Conveyancing and property development.
Disrepair.
Easements.
Environment.
Farms
Housing
Long leases.
Mediation.
Mortgage.
Nuisance.
Residential tenancies.
Restrictive covenants.
Service charges.
SDLT and VAT
Links
Cases and articles
Civil procedure
Contaminated land
Housing forms
Land Registration
Law reform
Neighbour and boundary disputes
Organisations
Professional associations
Publishers on-line
Residential landlord and tenant
Scotland
Statutes and SI's
Join HERE
Members Login
Download update
My Details
My Invoices
My Subscriptions
My CPD
Instructions
Logout
Home Page
>
Property Law Library
>
Planning
>
Enforcement
>
Deceit
Home Page
Contact
Editorial Team
Section Contents
Enforcement notices
Deceit
Deemed permission
Estoppel
User for 4 or 10 years
Stop notices
Print Version
Current page
Deceit
This page deals with two cases that superficially seem to raise the same issues. They both involve concealment of the use of a building for dwelling purposes. However, the outcome in each case was different - as the legal issue in each was different.
True nature of building hidden for four years
House looked like a barn
Welwyn Hatfield Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
[2010] EWCA Civ 26
Summary
A building owner was successful in obtaining a certificate of lawfulness under s171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 even though he had deliberately deceived the local planning authority in relation to his application for planning permission.
Facts
Mr Beesley, the building owner, had been granted planning permission for a barn. He had constructed a building that looked like a barn from the outside, but had fitted out the inside as a residential dwelling and occupied it as such. (This had been his intention throughout.) As he had used the building as a dwelling for four years he was granted, on appeal to the Secretary of State, a certificate of lawfulness of existing use on the basis that he had obtained immunity from enforcement.
The council appealed to the High Court contending that as Mr Beesley had never used the building as a barn, but always as a dwelling, there had been no actual “change of use” required by s171B(2). Therefore, the four-year time limit under that section did not apply. The appeal was allowed. The Secretary of State and Mr Beesley then appealed to the Court of Appeal contending that the section did apply as the building had been used in breach of planning control as a dwelling, and therefore a change of use in breach of planning had taken place.
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal held that, as the building had the features of a dwelling house when looked at as a whole, what had been built was a dwelling house and not a barn. As it was built in breach of planning control, the construction of the building fell within s171B(1) and the four-year time limit under that subsection applied. Richards LJ at paras 24 and 25:
"Looked at as a whole, the physical and design features of what was built by Mr Beesley were those of a dwelling house, not a hay barn. Its character and purpose, and its proper classification for planning purposes, were those of a dwelling house. Yet the planning permission was for the erection of a hay barn. If one asks whether the building operation carried out was, both externally and internally, fully in accordance with the planning permission, the answer is clearly "no": What was created internally was not on any sensible view a hay barn. The internal fitting out of the building with the rooms and features of a dwelling house meant that it was built in breach of planning control.
It follows that the construction of the building fell within section 171B(1) and that the four-year time limit under that subsection applied. Since, on the inspector's findings, the building had been completed more than four years before Mr Beesley applied for a certificate, it was too late for the council to take enforcement action against the operational development constituted by the construction of the building."
Comment
This case reinforces the policy considerations stated in
Arun DC v First Secretary of State
[2006] EWCA Civ 1172 where it was held that Parliament intended to provide protection to homes. That was the reason for the shorter period before obtaining immunity from enforcement of four years as opposed to 10 years for other material changes of use. The case is also of interest in that it makes clear that the intentions or dishonesty of the person making the application for the certificate are not relevant. The fact that the breach of planning control had been deliberately embarked upon from the time of making the planning application could not impact on the purely objective and factual question of whether or not the certificate should be granted. Richards LJ at para 18:
"The court should not be tempted to adopt a strained construction of the section in reaction to the deliberate deceit practised by Mr Beesley or out of concern for the difficulties that such conduct creates for local planning authorities in enforcing planning control. The outcome should be the same as if, for example, there had been a genuine change of mind in the course of construction of a building for which planning permission had been obtained in good faith. 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."
It is also worth mentioning that the Court of Appeal concluded in addition that immunity had been acquired separately under s171B(2) of the Act. The building was permitted to be used as a barn only. Its use as a dwelling was therefore to be regarded, for the purposes of s171B(2) as a change of use in breach of planning control.
When is building "substantially complete"
Using straw bales to hide the development
Fidler v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
[2010] EWHC 143 (Admin)
Summary
This case seems superficially to raise the same issues as Welwyn Hatfield. It also involved the concealment of the use of a building for dwelling purposes. However, the outcome was different – as the legal issue in the case was different.
Facts
Mr Fidler built a dwelling house without planning permission, and concealed it under straw bales and tarpaulins during its construction. Following completion of the construction works in 2002, he and his family occupied it leaving the straw bales and tarpaulin in place. In July 2006, he removed the straw bales and tarpaulins. In response to enforcement notices issued in February 2007, he contended that the building had been substantially completed in June 2002 and that the four-year period referred to in section 171B(1) had accordingly expired.
On an enforcement notice appeal, the inspector concluded that the removal of the straw bales and tarpaulin was an integral part of the construction process and formed part of the totality of the building operations in question. Therefore, he dismissed Mr Fidler's appeal, holding that the building had not been substantially completed until these items had been removed. Mr Fidler appealed.
Decision
The High Court upheld the inspector’s decision. The inspector was fully entitled to find that there was such a close and intimate connection between the erection and removal of the straw bales and the construction of the dwelling as to lead to the conclusion that the former was a necessary part of the overall building operations relating to the latter.
The inspector had made it clear that the erection and removal of the straw bales was an essential part of building operations that were intended to deceive the local planning authority and to achieve by deception lawful status for a dwelling built in breach of planning control, Therefore, applying the decision in
Sage v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions
[2003] UKHL 22 it was clear that the four years began to run from the time the straw bales were removed in July 2006. There was therefore no immunity under the four-year rule.
Comment
As stated above, there is a superficial familiarity between these two cases. The difference is that in the former there was no question that the barn had not been substantially completed and used as a dwelling house for over four years. In this case, Mr Fidler's means of deception was his undoing: The straw bales he had used to conceal the development were held as a matter of fact to constitute part of the building operations of the building. Therefore, the inspector concluded, that the building had not been substantially completed until the bales were removed. As the development only acquires immunity after the expiry of four years from its substantial completion Mr Fidler was not able to avail himself of the statutory regime to protect the development from enforcement action.
Back to top
If you have found this page useful, you may be interested in the following:
Options
Free Summaries
£nil
Full Membership
From £207 + VAT (1 year)