East Barnet: the character of a planning use
East Barnet Urban District Council v British Transport Commission [1962] 2 QB 484 is an older authority on material change of use.
Source note: The original report is not held. This summary follows the House of Lords’ discussion in Great Portland Estates, at pages 669–670. There is no East Barnet judgment download.
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
- [1962] 2 QB 484
- Court
- High Court, Queen's Bench Divisional Court
- Judge
- Lord Parker CJ; full court constitution not verified
Need help with a planning application?
Planning Geek isn’t just a reference site - preparing and submitting planning applications is what we do. If you’d like a hand with an application, an appeal or any other planning matter, we’d be glad to help.
Look at the use, not just the occupier
Lord Scarman described East Barnet as a case about whether the use of land amounted to development requiring permission. The justices found no development, and the Divisional Court declined to interfere with that assessment of fact and degree.
The principle attributed to Lord Parker CJ concerns the character of the use, rather than the particular purpose of the person occupying the land.
This helps distinguish the planning activity on a site from the identity or wider business objectives of its occupier. British Waterways provides a related application.
Personal circumstances are not always irrelevant
Great Portland Estates also explains the limits of the general principle. Exceptional personal circumstances or hardship may be relevant; the human factor is not automatically excluded from planning.
East Barnet should therefore not be reduced to a rule that the decision-maker must ignore everything about an applicant. The legal question and the relevance of the particular evidence still matter.
East Barnet Case Law Page Updated: 12th September 2026