Change of Use in UK Law

I do not find it necessary to consider those issues in any detail. M and WR rightly accept that it is permissible to consider off-site effects when assessing whether an MCU has been established. In assessing whether there is a change of character in the use, its impact of the use on other premises is a relevant factor. It is necessary, on the particular facts, to consider both what is happening on the land and its impact off the land when deciding whether the character of the use has changed.

The simple proposition which should not be lost sight of is that the use for which a planning permission is granted must be ascertained by interpreting the words in the planning permission itself. If the permitted use has been implemented, and a change to the permitted use takes place, then it will be a question of fact and degree whether that change is a material change of use.

On the facts of cases such as the present, it will not be sufficient if the works are integral to or part and parcel of the present unauthorised use of land if the works had been undertaken for a different, and lawful, use and could be used for that other, lawful use even if the unauthorised use ceased.

As I suggested in the course of the argument, I think for that purpose whatthe local authority are entitled to look at is the whole of the area which was used for a particular purpose including any part of that area whose use was incidental to or ancillary to the achievement of that purpose.

I accept Mr Corner's point that an enforcement notice can lawfully be issued notwithstanding that at the moment of issue the activity objected to is not going on—because it is the week-end or the factory's summer holiday, for instance. The land would still be properly described as being used for the objectionable activity. I accept that there will be borderline cases when it is not clear whether the land is being used for the objectionable activity.

I am very doubtful about that elaboration of the council's argument. But it is unnecessary for me to say anything more on the point, both because of my finding that the council's basic case under section 171B(3) must fail and because Mr Beglan made clear that the council would wish to enforce against the residential use of the building even if it could not secure removal of the building itself.

Personal circumstances of an occupier, personal hardship, the difficulties of businesses which are of value to the character of a community are not to be ignored in the administration of planning control. It would be inhuman pedantry to exclude from the control of our environment the human factor. It can, however, and sometimes should, be given direct effect as an exceptional or special circumstance.