Canterbury City Council v Hill

Canterbury City Council v Hill

The appeal was dismissed because the judge's findings of fact regarding the mobility of the pig sheds were proper and not open to challenge on appeal, the planning application and fee issues were irrelevant due to lack of permitted development rights, and the enforcement order remained valid and uncomplied with.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Canterbury City Council; Appellant/defendant: Mrs Hill
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Committal Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Planning Control, Committal for Contempt, Planning Permission Applications, Permitted Development Rights
Planning Law Civil Procedure Enforcement of Planning Control Committal for Contempt Planning Permission Applications Permitted Development Rights

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canterbury City Council

Claimant/respondent

Mrs Hill

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Committal Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the committal order for breach of planning enforcement was proper
  2. 2 Whether the pig sheds were mobile and thus not subject to the order
  3. 3 Whether the planning application should have been considered without a fee

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the judge's findings of fact regarding the mobility of the pig sheds were proper and not open to challenge on appeal, the planning application and fee issues were irrelevant due to lack of permitted development rights, and the enforcement order remained valid and uncomplied with.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; committal order stands