Hartley v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1970] 1 QB 413
The point in plain English: A lawful planning use can be lost through abandonment. If that happens, simply starting the old activity again may amount to a fresh material change of use requiring planning permission.
What the Court of Appeal decided
The site had once been used both as a petrol filling station and for car sales. Car sales then stopped for several years while the filling-station use continued. When substantial car sales resumed, the Minister found that the earlier car-sales use had been abandoned.
The Court of Appeal upheld that conclusion. The key question was whether the cessation had merely been temporary or whether, viewed objectively in context, the former use had been abandoned. Once abandonment occurred, resumption could amount to a material change of use.
Why it still matters
Later cases refined the factors used to judge abandonment, but Hartley remains the foundation of the principle. See Planning Geek’s guide to abandonment 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.