Sarah Nicholson v Secretary of State for the Environment and Maldon District Council (1998) 76 P&CR 191
The point in plain English: A breach of condition must itself run for the required enforcement period. If the breach stops and compliance resumes, a later breach is ordinarily a fresh breach with a fresh clock.
What the High Court decided
The case concerned an agricultural occupancy condition. There had been a period of occupation in breach, but that non-compliance ended before the lawful development certificate application was made.
The High Court held that the relevant failure to comply had to be identified as a matter of fact and degree. Once that breach ended, a later episode of non-compliance would be a fresh breach. Separate periods could not simply be stitched together to make up the enforcement period.
Why it still matters
The case remains useful when proving immunity from enforcement for a breach of condition. See Planning Geek’s guides to certificates of lawfulness and the 10-year rule and breach of condition notices.
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.