Over Taylor Biggs

Autodex Limited applied for a Certificate for storage and ancillary purpose.  This was refused by the London Borough of Hillingdon.  A subsequent appeal was successful.  The Council nonetheless appealed under the Town and Country Planning Act for the planning Inspector's decision to be quashed. 

The Council alleged the Inspector had failed to define in sufficient detail the use that existed when the Certificate was granted and, in particular, failed to:

•·         State the level of storage that had been established.

•·         Identify the primary and ancillary uses on the site.

•·         State what was meant by the expression "ancillary purposes" forming part of the Inspector's decision.

The High Court backed the Inspector and rejected the local planning authority's application.

It said that the level of detail would depend on each individual case.  This was a matter for an Inspector to decide, based upon the evidence presented.  There was no legal requirement to specify the quantity of any particular item that could lawfully be stored.  It would be unnecessary and unrealistic to limit the quantity of items and the way they have been stored over the past 10 years.  There was also no obligation to define "ancillary purposes".  This was a concept familiar to those dealing with planning law and relatively well established in planning law.

In essence, the Inspector had been entitled to reach her decision on the evidence and that decision was not unreasonable.

This confirms there are no established criteria governing the content a Certificate.  Circumstances will dictate the level of necessary detail.  If a Certificate lacks detail, it will be less simple to determine the extent of the use authorised as time passes and whether there has been a departure that amounts to a change of use for which planning permission is required.