Mid-Devon District Council, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Ors

Mid-Devon District Council, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Ors

Section 294(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 does not confer immunity from enforcement proceedings for development carried out by or on behalf of the Crown on land that was not Crown land at the time of development. The Inspector's decision was based on a misinterpretation of the statute and relevant case law.

Parties
Claimant: Mid-Devon District Council; First Respondent: First Secretary of State; Second Respondent: Mr R H Stevens; Second Respondent: Mrs L E Stevens
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / Appeal From Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notices, Crown Immunity, Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Planning Law Enforcement Notices Crown Immunity Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mid-Devon District Council

Claimant

First Secretary of State

First Respondent

Mr R H Stevens

Second Respondent

Mrs L E Stevens

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / Appeal From Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 294(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 confer immunity from enforcement proceedings for development carried out by or on behalf of the Crown on land that was not Crown land at the time of development?
  2. 2 Was the Inspector correct in quashing the enforcement notices based on Crown immunity?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 294(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 does not confer immunity from enforcement proceedings for development carried out by or on behalf of the Crown on land that was not Crown land at the time of development. The Inspector's decision was based on a misinterpretation of the statute and relevant case law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The decision of the first respondent's Inspector dated 29th September 2003 is remitted for rehearing and redetermination.