Sheridan & Ors, R (On the Application of) v Basildon District Council

Sheridan & Ors, R (On the Application of) v Basildon District Council

The claims were dismissed because the principal decision to take enforcement action under section 178 was lawful, proportionate, and not vitiated by any failure to consider material considerations or statutory duties. Delay precluded most grounds. The Council had properly considered personal circumstances, including those of children and vulnerable residents, and had balanced these against the public interest in enforcing planning law. There was no legal requirement to await alternative sites or to negotiate further. Any errors in weighting the RSS or in the Housing Act duty would not have affected the outcome. The enforcement action was not disproportionate under Article 8 ECHR.

Parties
Claimant: Mary Sheridan; Claimant: Cornelius Sheridan and others; Claimant: Margaret McCarthy; Defendant: Basildon District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission Hearing and Substantive Determination
Outcome
Permission for judicial review refused; claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Planning Control, Section 178 Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private and Family Life), Children Act 2004 Section 11, Housing Act 2004 Section 225, Equality Act 2010 Section 149, Proportionality in Public Law, Delay in Judicial Review, Alternative Accommodation for Travellers
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Law Enforcement of Planning Control Section 178 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private and Family Life) Children Act 2004 Section 11 Housing Act 2004 Section 225 +4 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Sheridan

Claimant

Cornelius Sheridan and others

Claimant

Margaret McCarthy

Claimant

Basildon District Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission Hearing and Substantive Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Basildon District Council's decision to take direct action under section 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was lawful and proportionate
  2. 2 Whether the Council failed to consider material considerations including alternative sites, personal circumstances, and statutory duties under the Housing Act 2004 and Children Act 2004
  3. 3 Whether delay or abuse of process precluded the claims

Ratio Decidendi

The claims were dismissed because the principal decision to take enforcement action under section 178 was lawful, proportionate, and not vitiated by any failure to consider material considerations or statutory duties. Delay precluded most grounds. The Council had properly considered personal circumstances, including those of children and vulnerable residents, and had balanced these against the public interest in enforcing planning law. There was no legal requirement to await alternative sites or to negotiate further. Any errors in weighting the RSS or in the Housing Act duty would not have affected the outcome. The enforcement action was not disproportionate under Article 8 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Permission for judicial review refused; claims dismissed

Orders

  • Order for costs in favour of Basildon District Council in each action, subject to detailed assessment and the usual order regarding enforcement against legally aided parties
  • No interim injunction or stay granted pending appeal