Planning permission is needed for any ‘development’. That covers either a material change of use, or the carrying out of ‘building, engineering, mining or other operations’.

Much publicity was given to the recent case of the landowner who built a house (castle was how it was described in the press), and then concealed it from the roadway by hiding it behind bales of straw covered with a tarpaulin. After four years (the normal period for enforcement action), he then removed the straw bales and tarpaulin, to reveal his castle!

Not surprisingly, the ploy failed. The court took the view that the removal of the straw and tarpaulin amounted to a ‘building operation’, even though those steps were not in themselves building operations. However, you had to look at the totality of the situation, and since the landowner had always intended to remove the straw and tarpaulin, so their removal was part of the original building operations. Accordingly, the four-year enforcement period had not elapsed.

From a legal perspective, the importance of the decision is that it illustrates that the courts will take a wider interpretation of ‘building operations’ when applying it to enforcement provisions, than when applying it to the basic definition of ‘development’. For enforcement purposes, building operations will be given a holistic interpretation, in the sense that one has to look at the totality of the operations (in accordance with Sage [2003]). ?Fidler v Secretary of State [2010] EWHC 143 (Admin) (access free at www.practicalconveyancing.co.uk).