Davenport v Hammersmith and Fulham, LBC (23 March 1999) Queen's Bench Divisional Court 1

This case involved an appeal by Joseph and John Davenport against their convictions for breach of a planning notice. Joseph Davenport had been granted planning permission to use premises for motor vehicle repairs. One of the conditions attached to the permission was that none of the vehicles which had been left with or were in the control of Joseph Davenport could be stored or parked on the road outside the premises. However, John Davenport as well as several of Joseph Davenport's employees had been noticed parking cars on the road. The judge cited Mouchell Superannuation Fund Trustees v Oxfordshire County Council ([1992] 1 PLR 97, 105) in which Lord Justice Glidewell stated that "... a condition purporting to require the carrying out of works on land neither within the application site nor within the control of the applicant is outside the powers of the [Town and Country Planning Act 1990]." Messrs Davenport were clearly in a position to comply with the condition. To comply with the condition they clearly did not need control of the land. There was nothing to demonstrate that a condition in relation to land outside an application site or outside the control of the applicant was invalid so long as it could be complied with. The court held that the notice to John Davenport was invalid because it was not a condition regarding the use of the relevant land. John Davenport's appeal was therefore allowed. The court stated that this did not affect Joseph Davenport's position and his appeal was refused. (Times Law Reports, 26 April 1999).