Davies & Anor v Crawley Borough Council [2001] EWHC Admin 854 (1st November, 2001)

Davies & Anor v Crawley Borough Council [2001] EWHC Admin 854 (1st November, 2001)

The Council acted lawfully and reasonably in adopting the street trading scheme under the 1982 Act, designating prohibited and consent streets, and setting the £5000 fee. The Council was not required to use section 102 of the 1990 Act or pay compensation, as planning permission does not confer a proprietary right...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] EWHC Admin 854
Parties
Claimant: Derek Davies; Claimant: Linda Atkins; Defendant: Crawley Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Street Trading Regulation, Planning Permission, Fees and Charges by Local Authorities, Right to Property (echr Article 1 Protocol 1), Judicial Review—wednesbury Unreasonableness
Administrative Law Local Government Law Human Rights Law Street Trading Regulation Planning Permission Fees and Charges by Local Authorities Right to Property (echr Article 1 Protocol 1) Judicial Review—wednesbury Unreasonableness

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Derek Davies

Claimant

Linda Atkins

Claimant

Crawley Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council acted unlawfully or unreasonably in adopting a street trading scheme under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, designating certain streets as prohibited or consent streets, and setting a £5000 annual fee for trading consents;
  2. 2 Whether the Council was required to consider or adopt discontinuance under section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and pay compensation under section 115;
  3. 3 Whether the Council's actions breached Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (peaceful enjoyment of possessions);

Ratio Decidendi

The Council acted lawfully and reasonably in adopting the street trading scheme under the 1982 Act, designating prohibited and consent streets, and setting the £5000 fee. The Council was not required to use section 102 of the 1990 Act or pay compensation, as planning permission does not confer a proprietary right and the 1982 Act provides a lawful regulatory route. The fee was not arbitrary and was subject to review and hardship relief. There was no breach of Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, as there was no deprivation of possessions and any interference was proportionate and justified in the public interest.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review refused
  • No order quashing the Council's decision to adopt the street trading scheme or the £5000 fee