Panton and Farmer: dormant use and lawful development
Panton and Farmer v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Vale of White Horse District Council (1999) 78 P&CR 186 explains why a use can remain lawful even when little or no activity is taking place.
But this is not a shortcut for acquiring immunity. The important distinction is between establishing that a use became lawful and deciding whether the resulting right was subsequently lost.
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
- (1999) 78 P&CR 186; [1999] JPL 461
- Court
- High Court, Queen's Bench Division
- Judgment date
- 16th December 1998
- Judge
- Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
Several uses at an old mill
The application concerned Dandridges Mill at East Hanney. Over its history the property had accommodated residential occupation, artistic and modelling work, a catering business and storage.
The inspector issued a certificate for residential use of the flat, with ancillary activities. Yet her findings described residential use across the mill more widely. She also focused on recent activity without properly deciding whether earlier commercial uses had acquired and retained lawful status.
The court allowed the challenges and required redetermination. It did not itself certify every commercial use claimed by the applicants.
Start with the origin of the claimed right
The court held that immunities acquired under the earlier legislation had not simply disappeared when the 1991 reforms introduced the new certificate system.
The decision-maker needed to examine when the relevant material change of use occurred and whether the resulting right had subsequently been lost. Looking only at the level of activity shortly before the application could miss the real question.
The judgment identified abandonment, creation of a new planning unit and a subsequent material change of use as ways in which accrued use rights might be lost by operation of law. It also recognised the separate possibility of a discontinuance order.
Dormant does not automatically mean abandoned
A lawful use could be inactive for a substantial period and still be an ‘existing use’ for the certificate procedure. Inactivity was relevant evidence, but it was not a substitute for making the necessary finding about the status of the use.
This concerns retention of an accrued right. It should not be read as saying that any intermittent or discontinued unauthorised activity automatically acquires immunity after ten calendar years.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that distinction when discussing Panton and Farmer in paragraph 19 of Waltham Forest [2002]. Our Ocado entry provides further treatment of lawful-use evidence.
The certificate must fit what the evidence proves
The court also addressed the power and duty to modify the description in a certificate application. Where the evidence demonstrates a lawful use, the decision-maker should not ignore it merely because the applicant’s wording needs correction.
Here the inspector’s certificate failed to reflect even her own findings about the extent of residential use. Requiring the applicants to submit another application was not an adequate answer.
The historical use classes and enforcement provisions in the report should not be copied as a statement of today’s legislation. The reusable principles concern accrued rights, proper findings and accurate certification.
Read the Panton and Farmer report
Gold Members can read the complete report below. The judgment date is 16th December 1998, although the familiar report citations are dated 1999.
Panton and Farmer Case Law Page Updated: 12th September 2026