Broadland District Council v Brightwell [2010] EWCA Civ 1516 (28 October 2010)

Broadland District Council v Brightwell [2010] EWCA Civ 1516 (28 October 2010)

The appeal was dismissed because the judge at first instance had proper regard to the relevant personal circumstances and Article 8 ECHR, and the grant of the injunction was proportionate in light of the persistent and flagrant breaches of planning control, the lack of agricultural justification for residential use, and the public interest in upholding planning law and protecting the environment. The court found no error in the judge's approach or balancing of interests.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 1516
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 Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Home and Family Life), Proportionality in Planning Enforcement, Enforcement of Planning Control
Planning Law Human Rights Law Injunctions Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Home and Family Life) Proportionality in Planning Enforcement Enforcement of Planning Control

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 Amounts and remedies 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 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was proportionate and compatible with Article 8 ECHR given the appellants' personal circumstances and long-term residence.
  2. 2 Whether the judge at first instance properly considered Article 8 ECHR and the proportionality of the interference with the appellants' home and family life.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the judge at first instance had proper regard to the relevant personal circumstances and Article 8 ECHR, and the grant of the injunction was proportionate in light of the persistent and flagrant breaches of planning control, the lack of agricultural justification for residential use, and the public interest in upholding planning law and protecting the environment. The court found no error in the judge's approach or balancing of interests.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Injunction granted against the appellants restraining residential and certain other uses of the land as specified in the original order.