Britannia Assets (UK) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor (Rev 1)

Britannia Assets (UK) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor (Rev 1)

The court held that challenges to the lawfulness of enforcement notices under section 172 must be brought by judicial review and not in a section 289 appeal. The Inspector did not err in law in her interpretation of the planning permissions, the Use Classes Orders, or in finding abandonment of the lawful use. The Inspector correctly applied the Habitats Directive and Regulations, and there was no error of law in her conclusion that planning permission should be refused on nature conservation grounds. The allegations of bias and lack of proportionality were unsubstantiated and did not amount to legal error. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Britannia Assets (UK) Limited; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government; Second Respondent: Medway Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal Under Section 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notices, Judicial Review, Planning Permission, Habitats Directive, Bias, Proportionality
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Enforcement Notices Judicial Review Planning Permission Habitats Directive Bias +1 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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Britannia Assets (UK) Limited

Applicant

Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

First Respondent

Medway Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal Under Section 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector and the court had jurisdiction to consider the lawfulness of enforcement notices under section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 within a section 289 appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector erred in law in her conclusions on the permitted use of the site and the application of the Use Classes Orders
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector erred in law in finding abandonment of the lawful use of the site

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that challenges to the lawfulness of enforcement notices under section 172 must be brought by judicial review and not in a section 289 appeal. The Inspector did not err in law in her interpretation of the planning permissions, the Use Classes Orders, or in finding abandonment of the lawful use. The Inspector correctly applied the Habitats Directive and Regulations, and there was no error of law in her conclusion that planning permission should be refused on nature conservation grounds. The allegations of bias and lack of proportionality were unsubstantiated and did not amount to legal error. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; enforcement notices upheld; timetable to be set for outstanding issues including costs and permission to appeal.