Arun enforcement costs have been awarded against Arun District Council after an Inspector found unreasonable conduct in its pursuit of a garden dwelling in Bognor Regis. The enforcement notice has survived, but its demand to demolish the building has been removed.
In paired appeals APP/C3810/C/24/3350946 and APP/C3810/C/24/3350947, Inspector L Douglas issued the appeal and separate costs decisions on 6 November 2026. The dispute concerned an outbuilding in a residential garden at Rose Green, Aldwick, used by a family as an independent three-bedroom home.
The outcome matters beyond this particular garden. The Arun enforcement costs award turns on the difference between enforcing against a new residential planning unit and demanding the destruction of a building that had already passed its applicable operational-development enforcement time limit.
A garden home, but not an ancillary annexe
The outbuilding was erected from July 2018 and was substantially complete by September 2019, the Inspector found. It contained three bedrooms, a kitchen, lounge, bathroom and en suite. Two earlier lawful development certificates had concerned a proposed incidental outbuilding and the proposed use of an annexe, but the Inspector explained that neither established the lawfulness of the building actually constructed or its later independent residential use.
The appellants maintained that the structure began as a permitted development ‘man cave’ before being used as a family annexe. The Inspector found the evidence insufficient to establish that account and considered that it was probably erected as a dwelling from the outset. Although the occupiers were related to the household in the main house, a family dispute meant that from at least December 2023 the two households were no longer functionally interdependent.
That factual finding was crucial. Ordinary family visits, shared meals and practical assistance did not, in the Inspector’s assessment, make the separate accommodation ancillary to the principal dwelling. The Inspector distinguished Uttlesford DC v Secretary of State for the Environment and Rowland White and applied the planning-unit approach associated with Burdle. The appeals failed on grounds (b) and (c): an unauthorised material change of use had taken place.
Why the demolition requirement failed
The council’s enforcement notice, issued on 13 August 2024, alleged a material change of use and associated operational development. It required the residential use to cease, the outbuilding to be removed and the land restored. The Inspector separated the building operations from the material change of use, applying the time limits and transitional provisions that were relevant on the date of the notice.
The building was substantially complete more than four years before that notice. In contrast, the independent residential planning unit had arisen within the relevant ten-year period. Ground (d) therefore succeeded in respect of the building operations but failed as regards the material change of use. The notice’s description was corrected accordingly; this was not an across-the-board finding that the independent dwelling was lawful.
The decisive ground (f) issue was whether removing the building was necessary to remedy the unauthorised use. In Caldwell [2024] EWCA Civ 467, the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of the Murfitt principle. The Inspector held that the building was the source of, and fundamental to, the change of use, rather than merely incidental works undertaken to facilitate it. The notice could require the independent use to stop, but not demolition under the alleged breach.
The Inspector therefore deleted the demolition step and varied the cessation and restoration requirements. The building can remain subject to the amended notice, but that does not grant permission to occupy it as a separate home. Nor does the ruling definitively authorise every extension or later operation, which the Inspector identified as a potential separate enforcement question.
Arun enforcement costs: why the council must pay
The separately issued Arun enforcement costs decision awarded the appellants only part of their costs. Inspector Douglas held that the council had unreasonably argued that the building was not substantially complete more than four years before the notice, despite the evidence available to it. That caused unnecessary expenditure on ground (d).
The Inspector also criticised the council’s handling of Caldwell. The notice had been issued shortly after the Court of Appeal’s ruling, but the council’s expediency report applied an outdated approach to Murfitt, and its submissions did not adequately address the point. The demand for demolition was therefore unreasonable, causing unnecessary costs under ground (f).
In the costs decision, the Inspector stated: “It was therefore unreasonable for the Council to issue the notice requiring the removal of the Building following the judgment in Caldwell.” The ruling did not find every aspect of Arun’s conduct unreasonable. Complaints about when the expediency report was shared, other reasons for enforcement and readily correctable wording errors did not justify further awards.
The order requires Arun District Council to pay the applicants’ reasonable costs incurred in addressing those two specific matters. It is a partial award, not a full recovery of all appeal expenditure, and no monetary sum was fixed in the decision. The amount is to be agreed or assessed if necessary. This distinction is important when reporting Arun enforcement costs: the appellants won on the excessive remedy, not on the underlying legality of their separate dwelling.
Why planning permission was still refused
The deemed application under ground (a) was unsuccessful. The Inspector found that the independent residential use generated harmful movements past neighbouring homes along a constrained side access and harmed nearby living conditions. The appellants also had not demonstrated suitable drainage and energy-efficiency provision or secured the required contribution linked to Pagham Harbour’s protected habitats.
Conversely, the Inspector found no harm to the area’s character and appearance and considered the dwelling itself capable of providing acceptable outlook and usable internal accommodation. These favourable findings did not overcome the planning objections. Nor did the potential future use as a genuinely ancillary annexe justify granting permission for independent occupation.
The three-month compliance period was also retained. The Inspector noted that the building was no longer occupied and was not persuaded that a longer period was justified on ground (g). The formal decision accordingly upheld the enforcement notice, corrected and varied, and refused planning permission for the independent dwelling.
What this means for enforcement notices
The Arun enforcement costs outcome underlines the need to identify precisely what has become lawful through time and what remains a breach. A physical building may have protection against enforcement directed at its construction while a later or distinct independent residential use remains unauthorised. Those are different questions, and the notice must match the breach and the remedy.
It also shows why an authority should re-evaluate a proposed demolition requirement against current case law before serving a notice. The live issues here are explained in Planning Geek’s guide to enforcement appeal grounds, particularly grounds (d) and (f). The Arun enforcement costs award demonstrates a direct financial consequence when those distinctions are not properly applied.
The appeal decision and separate costs order are available on AppealBase. The official council enforcement register also identifies the notice and both appeal references. The official Planning Inspectorate records are available for Appeal A (3350946) and Appeal B (3350947).
0 Comments