Enforcement appeal grounds (f) and (g) in practice

Grounds (f) and (g) of section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 accept that there is a breach and attack what the council is demanding about it. Ground (f) says the enforcement notice excessive steps go further than is necessary. Ground (g) says the time allowed for compliance is too short. Neither will save an unauthorised development, and both can turn a demolition order into a modification and a two-month deadline into a year.

For a landlord facing a notice on a converted property, those two grounds are usually worth more than the merits argument, because they are decided on practical evidence rather than on planning policy.

What ground (f) challenges

Ground (f) asserts that the steps required by the notice, or the activities required to cease, exceed what is necessary to remedy the breach or to remedy any injury to amenity caused by it.

The wording tracks section 173. A notice must state its purpose, and that purpose is either remedying the breach, by restoring the land to its condition before the breach or securing compliance with a condition, or remedying any injury to amenity. Which purpose the council has chosen matters enormously, because where the stated purpose is to remedy injury to amenity, lesser steps that cure the amenity harm are sufficient and total removal is excessive.

So read the notice's purpose before anything else. A notice that requires demolition of a rear extension so as to remedy injury to amenity is vulnerable if the amenity harm is the loss of light to one window, and a reduction in height or depth would deal with it.

What ground (f) cannot do is argue that the development should be permitted. That argument belongs in ground (a), which creates a deemed planning application with its own fee.

Proposing lesser steps that still remedy the breach

A ground (f) case succeeds on a specific alternative, drawn and costed, not on the proposition that the council is being harsh.

Set out what you say the notice should require instead, in the same imperative form the notice uses. Then show that the alternative achieves the stated purpose.

• Where the harm is overlooking, propose obscure glazing to a stated specification and fixed lights below a stated height rather than removal of the window.
• Where the harm is loss of light, propose a reduction in height or depth to a dimension shown on a drawing rather than demolition.
• Where the harm is visual, propose a change of materials, a screen or planting of a stated size and species.
• Where the breach is intensification of a use, propose a restriction on numbers, hours or activity rather than cessation of the whole use.
• Where the breach is a hardstanding, propose permeable reinstatement of part rather than removal of all of it.

Two supporting documents do most of the work. A drawing showing the existing situation and your proposed lesser scheme, and a short statement from whoever will carry out the work confirming it is buildable. Inspectors vary notices on that basis regularly.

Be realistic about the limits. Where the breach is the creation of additional dwellings and the harm is the loss of a family house, there is rarely a lesser step that cures it, and a ground (f) case in that situation tends to fail.

Under-enforcement and the permission you may gain

This is the part landlords are rarely told about. Section 173(11) of the 1990 Act provides that where an enforcement notice could have required a building to be removed or a use to cease, but instead requires less, planning permission is treated as granted for what is left standing or continuing once the notice is complied with.

The practical effect is significant. If you succeed on ground (f) and the inspector varies the notice so that the extension is reduced rather than demolished, compliance with the varied notice leaves you with a deemed permission for the reduced building. You end up with a lawful structure rather than a bare plot.

That is a reason to think hard about which lesser step you propose. Propose the reduction you actually want to live with, supported by a drawing you would be content to build to, because the deemed permission follows the notice rather than your preferences.

It is also a reason for councils to draft notices carefully, and a well-advised authority will state the purpose as remedying the breach rather than the amenity injury where it wants full removal.

What ground (g) challenges

Ground (g) asserts that the period specified for compliance falls short of what should reasonably be allowed. Councils frequently allow one, two or three months, applied as a standard rather than calculated.

The inspector can extend the period, and often does where the appellant shows what the work involves. This is the most winnable of the seven grounds and the least well evidenced in practice.

Note the interaction with the appeal itself. Lodging an appeal suspends the notice until the appeal is determined, so an appeal already buys time. Inspectors are aware of that, which is why a ground (g) case that reads as a delaying tactic gets short treatment while one supported by a programme gets a sympathetic hearing.

Evidence on how long the work takes

Ground (g) is won with a programme. Produce a dated bar chart of the steps and the evidence behind each duration.

1. Design and, where needed, building control approval or a lawful development certificate application for the retained works.
2. Procurement, with at least two written quotations showing lead times rather than prices alone.
3. Ending tenancies lawfully where occupiers have to leave, which depends on the housing legislation in force and on the notice periods it requires, so take advice on the current position rather than assuming last year's rules.
4. Statutory notices to neighbours where the work touches a party wall, which carries its own minimum notice period under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996.
5. Surveys and licences, including an asbestos survey and any licensed removal, and ecological constraints such as nesting birds between March and August or a bat licence, which can add months and are outside your control.
6. Scaffolding, skip permits, highway licences and utility disconnections.
7. The works themselves, and reinstatement or landscaping that may have a planting season.

Each item needs a source. A quotation, a letter from a contractor, an ecologist's note, a utility company's stated lead time. A schedule with durations and no evidence reads as an estimate written for the appeal.

Then ask for a specific period. "Twelve months from the date of this decision" is a request an inspector can grant. "A reasonable period" is not.

Costs risk on a weak ground

The appeal system can award costs where a party has behaved unreasonably, and enforcement appeals are where that happens most often. A ground pleaded with no evidence, an appeal that repeats an argument already rejected, or a withdrawal on the eve of a hearing after the council has prepared its case can all attract an application.

So drop a ground you cannot evidence. Carrying ground (f) for appearances when you have no alternative scheme to propose, or ground (g) with no programme, adds nothing and creates exposure. And read the council's statement carefully, because an authority that has clearly set out why lesser steps will not work has also laid the groundwork for a costs application if you press on regardless. Our note on the appeal questionnaire and the council's statement explains how to read that material.

Drafting both grounds together

The two grounds sit comfortably side by side, because one is about what has to be done and the other about how long it takes. Write them under separate headings with their own evidence.

Under ground (f), state the notice's purpose as the council has stated it, identify the requirement you say is excessive, set out your alternative in imperative wording, attach the drawing, and explain how the alternative achieves the stated purpose. Add a sentence on the section 173(11) consequence so the inspector understands what compliance with your alternative would leave.

Under ground (g), state the period the notice allows, state the period you seek, attach the programme with its evidence, and explain each item that pushes the duration out. Where part of the delay is outside your control, such as a survey season, say so plainly.

Where third parties have made representations about the harm the notice addresses, their material can cut both ways, and our note on interested party representations at appeal covers how to handle it. If you are also running the planning merits under ground (a), keep that case in a properly structured Planning Statement rather than mixing it into grounds (f) and (g), and think carefully before you appeal at all, as set out in our note on reading reasons for refusal before you decide to appeal.

One honest uncertainty. Whether a lesser step does remedy injury to amenity is a matter of judgement for the inspector, and two inspectors on similar facts can differ. A drawn alternative supported by a contractor's note is the best way to narrow that judgement in your favour.

This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope can draft the planning documents an enforcement case needs in minutes, ready for review. Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which reports your site is likely to need.

PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.