Coates & Ors v South Bucks DC

Coates & Ors v South Bucks DC

The appeal was dismissed because the judge at first instance had properly considered all relevant factors, including the sensitive nature and planning history of the site, the appellants' flagrant breaches of planning law and court orders, the lack of a valid planning application due to their own fault, and the remote prospect of planning permission. The interference with Article 8 rights was proportionate in the circumstances, and the period of grace allowed was sufficient.

Parties
Appellant: Coates & Ors; Respondent: South Bucks D. C.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Planning Permission, Enforcement Notices
Planning Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Article 8 ECHR Proportionality Planning Permission Enforcement Notices

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Coates & Ors

Appellant

South Bucks D. C.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the period for compliance with an injunction requiring Travellers to vacate a green belt site should be stayed pending determination of a planning application
  2. 2 Whether immediate eviction is a proportionate interference with Article 8 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the judge at first instance had properly considered all relevant factors, including the sensitive nature and planning history of the site, the appellants' flagrant breaches of planning law and court orders, the lack of a valid planning application due to their own fault, and the remote prospect of planning permission. The interference with Article 8 rights was proportionate in the circumstances, and the period of grace allowed was sufficient.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed if not agreed.
  • Community Legal Services Assessment of Appellant’s costs with assessment above to be adjourned.