Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Our latest thinking on key legal industry developments
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
The courts use the concept of the planning unit to determine the area of land to be considered when identifying the primary use of land (and its ancillary uses), and whether any material change of use has occurred.
In addition, local planning authorities taking enforcement action against a breach of planning control need to determine the extent of the planning unit to establish whether there has been an un-authorised change of use.*
The question of whether sites are separate planning units would therefore be a question of fact and degree, based on the application of the above tests.
The judgment in London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions provides guidance on the merging of separate planning units.
The case concerned a house divided into seven flats, which was proposed to revert back to a single house. The court held that a material change of use had occurred. The judge considered that part of the assessment of materiality was effect on planning policy, which here was against the loss of small residential units.
Unfortunately the judgement did not go on to the Court of Appeal and there do not appear to have been any further developments on this point since, either in the courts or at appeal.
The current position therefore is that the question of whether planning permission is needed to merge planning units depends on the relevant local and national planning policy in the area.
Where uses have already ‘merged’, it may also be worth considering whether the merged uses could now be immune from enforcement action.
Where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the carrying out without planning permission of building, engineering, mining, or other operations in, on, over or under land, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date on which the operations were substantially completed.
In the case of any other breach of planning control, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of ten years beginning with the date of the breach.
*LexisPSL Property subscribers can find further information in our Practice Note: Defining the planning unit which explains the tests to distinguish between separate planning units, including identifying the unit of occupation, sole primary use, geographical separation, composite uses, similarity of purposes of the sites and any ancillary uses. The note provides links to cases which have applied these tests.
Part of the LexisPSL Property Q&A series. Get a free one week trial of LexisPSL.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
Jen is a solicitor specialising in planning law. She has experience in relation to a range of planning topics, including environmental impact assessment, section 106 agreements, highways orders, compulsory purchase, freedom of information issues, inquiries, judicial review, the Localism Act 2011, the National Planning Policy Framework and major infrastructure projects. After qualifying at Ashurst, Jen worked at Bevan Brittan and subsequently at CMS Cameron McKenna as an associate in the planning team. She worked as an external author for LexisPSL before joining the team in November 2010. She has written for a variety of legal publications, including the New Law Journal, Utilities Week, Planning Resource and The Lawyer. Jen regularly appears on Talking Law videocasts providing legal updates on planning law.
0330 161 1234