header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
24 May 2012 / Paul Denholm
Issue: 7515 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Hidden perils

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Paul Denholm questions the application of LA 2011 to planning breaches

Much has already been said about the Localism Act 2011 (LA 2011), which applies to England and came into force in April.

There has been little exposure, however, to how it might impact buyers of residential properties where a planning breach may have occurred. The story starts with two high profile cases that have hit the pages of the national media.

A man’s home is his castle

First, there was Robert Fidler and his wife Linda who, in 2002, built a mock Tudor castle in Surrey. Lacking the relevant planning permission, they hid the castle behind a 40 feet high pile of straw bales. After they had lived there for more than four years, the bales were removed—and Reigate and Banstead Borough Council brought enforcement proceedings against them for breach of planning control. Section 171B of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) renders development immune from enforcement if building works were substantially completed more than four years previously.

However,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll