An Oldbury enforcement notice requiring a commercial storage operation to stop has been found legally defective because it failed to explain why the council considered action necessary. Inspector M Savage issued the decision on 15th October 2026, concerning land at West Bromwich Street in Oldbury, in the West Midlands.
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council had sought the removal of stored vehicles, materials, buildings and associated structures. The Oldbury enforcement decision ends this appeal without considering whether planning permission should be granted. For the operator and neighbours, that leaves the planning merits of the storage use unresolved.
I would separate those two points carefully. Defeating a defective notice does not establish that a use has planning permission or is lawful. Here, the Inspector found a fundamental problem with the notice itself, so the arguments about allowing the operation to remain were never decided.
Why the Oldbury enforcement notice was a nullity
The appeal, reference APP/G4620/C/24/3352202, was brought by Commercial Properties Parking Limited. Sandwell issued the notice on 21st August 2024. It alleged a material change of use from unallocated land to the storage of commercial vehicles and associated materials, described as a B8 storage use.
The Oldbury enforcement notice required that storage use to cease and all stored items, buildings, associated structures and plant to be removed. It allowed 60 days for compliance. Those were the requirements being challenged, rather than a refusal of an ordinary planning application.
The central problem was the explanation under the notice’s reasons section. It referred only to the alleged breach having occurred within the previous four years. That says something about timing, but does not explain the planning harm or why the council thought enforcement action was justified.
Inspector Savage concluded: “The notice is defective on its face and, in my judgement, is a nullity.” A nullity means that the notice is legally invalid. The formal decision says no further action will be taken in connection with this appeal and invites the council to consider reviewing its enforcement register.
A later explanation could not repair the omission
The Oldbury enforcement decision distinguishes between identifying an alleged breach and explaining why action should be taken against it. The Inspector referred to the statutory requirements for notices and the English enforcement regulations, which require reasons explaining why the authority considers issuing the notice expedient.
During the appeal, Sandwell supplied a statement seeking to clarify its position. The council said the site had formerly contained terraced housing and was allocated for employment purposes, but had no definitive pre-existing lawful use. Those statements formed part of its appeal case.
The Inspector understood the council’s concerns to involve noise and disturbance, visual amenity and transport impacts. However, the decision records that the statement provided no substantive analysis and left the objection unclear. More fundamentally, supplying reasons during an appeal could not cure their complete omission from the notice.
I would therefore start with the document served on the recipient. A later explanation may help everyone understand a dispute, but this decision shows why it cannot simply replace a required part of the original notice. The issue here was the absence of reasons, rather than whether a later planning objection sounded persuasive.
The allegation also referred to the wrong statutory provision
The Oldbury enforcement notice contained another inconsistency. It referred to the part of section 171A dealing with failure to comply with a condition or limitation attached to planning permission. Yet its allegation described a material change of use, and the council’s evidence appeared to concern development without permission.
The decision records an existing permission, DC/22/67358, granted on 2nd December 2022 for a new access and dropped kerb. It does not find that this permission authorised the storage operation. The Inspector expressly left aside the appellant’s arguments about what that permission meant.
Importantly for anyone comparing another notice, Savage said a reference to the wrong statutory subparagraph might be correctable where that would not cause injustice. The decision did not treat that reference alone as inevitably fatal. The complete omission of reasons was the decisive defect.
The Inspector also saw portable cabin-type units and other structures during the site visit on 13th October. The notice did not separately allege their erection. Savage understood the council to be relying on removal of works associated with the alleged change of use, adding to the importance of a clear allegation and explanation.
What was left undecided
The Oldbury enforcement appeal had continued on grounds seeking planning permission and challenging the notice’s requirements. Two other grounds, initially advanced, had been withdrawn after the council’s statement. Because the notice was a nullity, neither the remaining grounds nor the associated deemed planning application fell to be considered.
There was no award of costs. Although the appellant’s statement referred to costs guidance, the decision expressly says that no costs application had been made. A reference to guidance is not evidence that a claim was lodged, still less that compensation for appeal expenses was awarded.
For the operator, the immediate outcome is the failure of this notice. For neighbours concerned about the site’s effects, the decision supplies no finding that noise, appearance or traffic impacts are acceptable. I would not describe it as a planning approval, or assume it prevents the council considering its position again.
The complete Planning Inspectorate decision sets out the procedural outcome and reasoning. Our planning enforcement guide explains the wider process. The practical lesson is to distinguish the legal validity of an enforcement notice from the planning merits of the activity it challenges.
0 Comments