Case No. UKUT-00192-(AAC)

4. There is, in this case, quite an extensive factual background. We shall briefly set it out.5. Prior to the appellant’s application for a restricted licence, a planning dispute had arisen involving Mr M Clark and the local authority. The primary trigger for that dispute appears to have been Mr Clark’s stationing and use of a caravan for residential purposes, on land owned by him, without the obtaining of planning permission. But issues were also raised regarding a variety of other matters including what was said to be the unauthorised use of the land “for the storage of civil engineering/commercial vehicles”. The local authority issued an enforcement notice on 21 August 2014 and Mr Clark appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, which is a Government Agency. The Planning Inspectorate dismissed the appeal and upheld the notice but with variations in favour of Mr Clark. One of the results was that the use of the land for the storage of civil engineering/commercial vehicles was permitted. The Planning Inspectorate issued its decision to that effect on 25 June 2015.6. On 26 May 2017, in a move linked to the decision of the Planning Inspectorate, the local authority issued a “Certificate of Lawful Use” under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010. The salient part reads: “The evidence supporting the application is sufficiently robust, precise, and unambiguous to justify issuing a certificate for (1) the construction of a dwelling pursuant to planning permission 97/01795/FUL (2) the storage of commercial/civil engineering vehicles and building materials, and (3) for the area of land outlined in red on the plan attached to be used as a garden space ancillary to Tarran Barn Cottage. Section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has therefore been fulfilled sufficiently to grant a lawful certificate for these elements of the works”.7. Put simply, the issuing of the Certificate meant that it was lawful for the land to be used in the various ways referred to above including for the storage of commercial/civil engineering vehicles.8. On 13 March 2020 the appellant made its application for a restricted licence. It was indicated that its Operating Centre would be located at Tarran Barn Cottage (the land which was the subject of the lawful use certificate just referred to). It was indicated that it was proposed to use only one vehicle under the terms of the licence. Following the publication of a Statutory Notice concerning the proposed location of the Operating Centre, the local authority indicated to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (“OTC”) that it objected to the granting of the application. In an email of 1 April 2020, it explained its objection in this way:“The planning permission history and status of this land is complex. Tarran Barn Cottage is a residential dwelling not suitable for use as an operating centre and does not have any planning permission for this activity. Were it to be used for this purpose this would be a breach of planning control that would not be immune from planning enforcement action. However, a portion of its associated land has a long-standing historic use, acknowledged by the local planning authority, for the purposes of the storage (not operation) of civil engineering/commercial vehicles. This acknowledged storage use is for a strictly limited area of the associated land only. The surrounding area is predominantly quiet rural countryside the character of which could be significantly harmed contrary to local and national planning policy, by the unauthorised operation of a commercial vehicle centre. The access along Bar Lane is narrow.”9. There was subsequent correspondence involving the appellant, Mr Clark, and a Mr J Cullen the local authority’s principal planning enforcement officer. Whilst there was an attempt to raise some technical points regarding what were said to be imperfections in the way in which the local authority had sought to raise its objections, the primary point taken on behalf of the appellant was to the effect that the Certificate effectively authorised all of the functions which PED Plant would be performing at its proposed Operating Centre such that planning enforcement action could not be taken or, if it were to be taken, would be doomed to failure. The local authority, however, disagreed, taking the view that the Certificate did not authorise use of the land as an Operating Centre. The local authority also contended that there were suitability issues on the basis that the location of the proposed Operating Centre was adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest and that the use of the land as an Operating Centre would result in “more noise, visual disturbance and potential pollution to the adjacent SSSI”.