Enforcement Notice Upheld on Second Bite Appeal

22 July, 2025

An Inspector has upheld an enforcement notice issued by the London Borough of Barnet (LBB) in a s174 ground (d) appeal, following an inquiry in May.

Enforcement Notice Upheld on Second Bite Appeal

22 July, 2025

An Inspector has upheld an enforcement notice issued by the London Borough of Barnet (LBB) in a s174 ground (d) appeal, following an inquiry in May.

The appeal concerned the extension - both a ground-floor rear extension and a mixed roof and first-floor side extension – to a semi-detached residential property and the conversion of that property into seven self-contained flats. LBB had issued an enforcement notice in February 2022 (EN1), bearing in mind the time for taking action was approaching immunity, which was then withdrawn to allow the Appellant time to provide further evidence to support his position for LBB to consider. LBB’s concerns persisted and in December 2024, it issued a second notice (EN2) relying on the “second bite” provision in section 171B(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (to allow it to rely on the immunity period applying to EN1).

The Inspector confirmed that LBB had duly relied on the second bite provision. He concluded that the operational development (the extensions) was not immune. It had not been substantially completed four years before EN1 (the old version of section 171B of the 1990 Act applied to this appeal as the alleged breaches of planning control occurred before 25 April 2024). Notably, he accorded “significant weight” to aerial Google Earth images LBB had produced which contradicted the Appellant’s timeline of works, as well as relying on inconsistencies between a google streetview image and the Appellant’s account.

Regarding the use of the property as self-contained flats, the Inspector concluded that the Appellant’s account of the layout for three of the flats was such that to describe them as a “dwelling” could lead to “absurd conclusions” (considering their cramped size and (for two of the flats) their inadequate headroom, natural light and ventilation). However, he did conclude that the evidence demonstrate use of the property for four flats was immune.

This is a useful case exemplifying the increased reliance on Google Streetview and aerial imagery in planning enforcement cases and the weight that may be given to it at inquiries.

Merrow Golden represented the London Borough of Barnet, instructed by HB Public Law.