- Establishing change of use to dwellinghouse post subdivision of unit—planning enforcement—revisiting Doncaster MBC & Van Dyck and Welwyn Hatfield (Bansal v Secretary of State HCLG)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Planning analysis: This case goes back to the often thorny issue of the interplay between the creation of a dwellinghouse and its ‘use’ as such in order to establish material change of use for the requisite four-year immunity period from enforcement under section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990). In doing so the judge, Mrs Justice Lang, went back to consider the established cases in this context when looking at the subdivision of a single dwelling to two or more units ie, Doncaster MBC and Van Dyck v Secretary of State for the Environment; together with Impey v Secretary of State for the Environment and Welwyn Hatfield Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on how operational development affects change of use, and contrasts this with the need for continuous residential use or occupation as per the judgment in Swale BC v FSS & Less. Written by Celina Colquhoun, barrister at 39 Essex Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial