South Bedfordshire District Council v Price & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 493 (05 May 2006)

South Bedfordshire District Council v Price & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 493 (05 May 2006)

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was correct in refusing to suspend or vary the injunction and in limiting the suspension of the committal order to a short period. The new planning guidance improved the Defendants' prospects on appeal but did not create a substantial likelihood of success sufficient to justify further suspension. Enforcement of planning control must be maintained absent strong evidence that planning permission is likely to be granted.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 493
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: South Bedfordshire District Council; Appellants / Defendants: John Price and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal against refusal to suspend injunction refused.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Planning Control, Injunctions Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 S.187 B, Committal for Contempt of Court, Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision, Temporary Planning Permission, Green Belt Policy, Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Home)
Planning Law Administrative Law Human Rights Enforcement of Planning Control Injunctions Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 S.187 B Committal for Contempt of Court Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision Temporary Planning Permission +2 more

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South Bedfordshire District Council

Claimant / Respondent

John Price and Others

Appellants / Defendants

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injunction restraining residential use and requiring restoration of land should be suspended or varied pending planning appeal
  2. 2 Whether the committal order for breach of injunction should be suspended pending planning appeal
  3. 3 Impact of new planning guidance (Circular 01/06) on likelihood of temporary planning permission

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was correct in refusing to suspend or vary the injunction and in limiting the suspension of the committal order to a short period. The new planning guidance improved the Defendants' prospects on appeal but did not create a substantial likelihood of success sufficient to justify further suspension. Enforcement of planning control must be maintained absent strong evidence that planning permission is likely to be granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal against refusal to suspend injunction refused.

Orders

  • Committal order not suspended pending planning appeal; Defendants not permitted to return to the land.
  • Suspension of committal order in respect of land restoration obligation to be considered further, pending submissions from Counsel.