Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities v Caldwell & another [2024] EWCA Civ 467
Caldwell is the Court of Appeal judgment that clarifies the outer limit of the Murfitt principle. It confirms that works ancillary to an unlawful change of use can sometimes be required to be removed even where those works would otherwise have become immune from enforcement. But the principle cannot be stretched to operational development that was itself fundamental to or caused the change of use.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2024] EWCA Civ 467
- Court
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
- Judgment date
- 2nd May 2024
- Judge
- Sir Keith Lindblom, Lord Justice Coulson and Lady Justice Andrews
- Case number
- CA-2023-001916
What Caldwell decided
The case concerned a bungalow known as The Goose House near Beaconsfield. It had been built without planning permission in 2013 and 2014 on land previously in agricultural use and was then occupied residentially.
Buckinghamshire Council served an enforcement notice in 2021 requiring the residential use to cease and the bungalow to be demolished. By then, under the enforcement time limits applying to those historic facts, the building itself had become immune from direct enforcement as operational development.
An Inspector nevertheless concluded that the house could be required to be demolished under the Murfitt principle because it was integral to the later residential change of use. Lieven J quashed that conclusion. The Court of Appeal agreed with her and dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal.
Murfitt cannot override the statutory time limits
Sir Keith Lindblom emphasised that the Murfitt principle is a judge-made explanation of how the statutory power to restore land can work. It must stay within the enforcement scheme created by Parliament.
Under the law applicable to the Caldwell facts, operational development and material changes of use were subject to different enforcement time limits. Murfitt could not be used to make that distinction disappear.
The fact that construction of a building and its later use are closely connected does not mean the authority can simply choose the longer time limit and require the building itself to be removed.
Ancillary or facilitative works are different
The Court of Appeal reviewed Murfitt, Somak Travel, Kestrel Hydro and the related authorities. Those cases involved operational works that were secondary, ancillary or facilitative to the unlawful change of use.
Examples include hardstanding laid to enable vehicle parking, a staircase connecting floors used as offices, and structures added to support an unlawful private members’ club.
In those circumstances the works can form part of restoring the land to its condition before the unlawful use began.
The Goose House was the source of the residential use
The Goose House was different. It was not a minor or subordinate work introduced to facilitate an already existing residential change of use. Building the dwelling was itself the operational development that made the new residential use possible.
The Court of Appeal described works of this kind as fundamental to or causative of the change of use. They are separate development in their own right and fall outside the Murfitt principle.
That distinction is the core of Caldwell.
Part and parcel is not enough on its own
The Inspector had focused heavily on whether the bungalow was integral to or part and parcel of the residential use. Caldwell shows why those phrases cannot be applied without the statutory context.
Almost any newly built dwelling will be integral to the residential use that follows. If that fact alone allowed Murfitt to require demolition, the separate enforcement protection for operational development would have had little meaning under the former regime.
The decision-maker must first understand the limits of the Murfitt principle and only then apply a fact-and-degree judgment.
Caldwell does not overrule Kestrel Hydro
The Court of Appeal treated Kestrel Hydro as binding and correct. Caldwell refines its application rather than overturning it.
Kestrel concerned associated structures erected after an unlawful mixed use had begun and to serve that use. Caldwell concerned the construction of the dwelling that itself generated the residential use. That factual distinction explains the different outcomes.
The enforcement time limits changed on 25th April 2024
Caldwell contains an important postscript. From 25th April 2024, England moved to a general ten-year enforcement period for operational development and material changes of use, subject to transitional protection for older breaches.
That reform means the particular clash between the former four-year operational period and ten-year change-of-use period will arise less often in future cases. The reasoning remains highly relevant to the lawful scope of enforcement notice requirements and to older breaches protected by the transitional provisions.
See our current guide to enforcement time limits.
Read the full Caldwell judgment
The approved Court of Appeal judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Related Planning Geek guidance
For the practical appeal routes, see enforcement appeal grounds and enforcement notices and appeals. Caldwell is best read alongside Murfitt and Kestrel Hydro.
Caldwell Case Law Page Updated: 9th September 2026