A Canterbury enforcement appeal has ended with a rooftop smoke extraction system allowed to remain and the city council ordered to pay the appellant’s full appeal costs. Inspector Robert Naylor quashed the enforcement notice on 16th October 2026 after accepting detailed evidence that the plant was substantially complete before the relevant four-year deadline.
The equipment sits on a building in St Peter’s Street and provides smoke ventilation for a central corridor. Canterbury City Council served its notice in March 2025, requiring the rooftop plant, pipework and associated material to be removed within three months. The appeal decision means that notice no longer has effect.
What makes this Canterbury enforcement appeal particularly useful is the combination of dated site evidence, uncertain Google Earth imagery and a later planning permission for screening. The Inspector decided that the council was entitled to protect its enforcement position at first, but acted unreasonably when it later refused to withdraw the notice or use a planning condition after granting permission.
Why the Canterbury enforcement appeal succeeded
The notice alleged the unauthorised construction of rooftop plant. Because the operational development had taken place before 25th April 2024, the former four-year time limit applied. The decisive question was therefore whether the equipment had been substantially completed before 7th March 2021, four years before the notice was issued.
The appellant supplied crane-hire invoices, dated emails, site-manager diary entries and photographs. Those records showed the fan-assisted vents being delivered and installed at roof level on 1st March 2021, with missing ductwork parts delivered and installed by 4th March.
Canterbury City Council relied mainly on Google Earth images dated 9th and 30th March 2021. It said the earlier image showed no rooftop plant, while the later one did. The Inspector found the 9th March image blurry and difficult to interpret. He also accepted that dates attached to historic Google Earth images may be approximate.
That left the appellant’s records as the stronger evidence. The Inspector described them as “sufficiently precise and unambiguous” and concluded, on the balance of probability, that the plant had been substantially complete before the cut-off date.
The Canterbury enforcement appeal therefore succeeded under ground (d), which applies when the alleged breach was already immune from enforcement action when the notice was issued. The alternative ground (f), concerning whether the notice demanded excessive steps, did not need to be considered.
Later permission changed the costs position
The separate costs decision draws an important distinction between serving the notice and continuing to defend it. The Inspector did not criticise the council merely for acting as the four-year period approached. Councils can reasonably serve a notice to prevent a possible breach becoming immune while the facts are still disputed.
The position changed during the appeal. The appellant explained that the plant was a vital fire-safety component, used to extract smoke from a corridor without windows. A retrospective application was also submitted for the existing plant and an extension to the roof that would screen it. Canterbury City Council granted that permission in July 2025.
The appellant then asked the council to withdraw the enforcement notice. It also suggested that a condition attached to the permission could require the screening to be completed within a shorter, enforceable period. The council declined, saying the notice was the only mechanism available to secure compliance.
The Inspector disagreed. Once the council had accepted the plant and its proposed screening through planning permission, a condition could have provided certainty and left further enforcement powers available if the screening was not completed. Continuing with the notice caused the appellant unnecessary expense.
For that later part of the Canterbury enforcement appeal, the council’s conduct was unreasonable. A full costs award was made, although the actual amount must now be agreed between the parties or assessed separately if agreement cannot be reached.
Why the evidence matters
I would not read this decision as saying that a Google Earth image is never useful. The point is narrower. When an image is unclear, its recorded date may be approximate and the disputed deadline is separated by only two days, it may carry less weight than a coherent bundle of invoices, diaries, emails and dated photographs.
The Canterbury enforcement appeal also shows why “substantially complete” matters for operational development. The test is not necessarily whether every related task has finished. Here, missing ductwork pieces were fitted on 4th March, but the plant was still found complete before 7th March. Anyone relying on immunity needs evidence tied to the actual works and the correct statutory period.
That period must be handled carefully. The enforcement time limits changed for breaches occurring on or after 25th April 2024. The older four-year rule applied here because the rooftop works pre-dated that change. It should not be assumed to govern present-day operational development.
The Canterbury enforcement appeal also reinforces a practical costs lesson. A council may have acted reasonably when it first took action, yet become unreasonable later if new evidence or a fresh permission removes the need to continue. Parties should keep reviewing their position instead of defending an earlier decision by default.
Planning Geek’s planning enforcement guidance explains how notices and appeal grounds fit together. The recent Oldbury enforcement decision offers a different example, where the notice itself failed because it did not explain why action was considered necessary.
0 Comments