Broadland District Council v Brightwell

Broadland District Council v Brightwell

The judge at first instance properly considered the relevant factors, including the appellants' personal circumstances, the impact on their family life, and the planning history. The need to enforce planning control and the persistent, flagrant breaches by the appellants outweighed the hardship to the family. The proportionality exercise required by Article 8 ECHR was sufficiently addressed, and the grant of the injunction was justified and not an error of law or discretion.

Parties
Respondent: Broadland District Council; Appellants: Mr and Mrs Brightwell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Injunctions Under Section 187 B Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Home and Family Life), Enforcement of Planning Control, Proportionality in Human Rights
Planning Law Human Rights Law Injunctions Under Section 187 B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Home and Family Life) Enforcement of Planning Control Proportionality in Human 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Broadland District Council

Respondent

Mr and Mrs Brightwell

Appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant of an injunction under Section 187B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was appropriate and proportionate in light of Article 8 ECHR rights of the appellants
  2. 2 Whether the judge at first instance properly considered the proportionality and personal circumstances required by Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance properly considered the relevant factors, including the appellants' personal circumstances, the impact on their family life, and the planning history. The need to enforce planning control and the persistent, flagrant breaches by the appellants outweighed the hardship to the family. The proportionality exercise required by Article 8 ECHR was sufficiently addressed, and the grant of the injunction was justified and not an error of law or discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Injunctions granted by the High Court are upheld, requiring the appellants to cease residential use of the land, remove mobile homes and structures, and comply with planning enforcement.