Dacorum Borough Council v Purcell & Ors

Dacorum Borough Council v Purcell & Ors

The Planning Inspector's decision was adequately reasoned and correct in law; the cost of upgrading the reservoir would be grossly disproportionate to the benefit to the Respondents; Article 8 ECHR rights, even if expressly considered, would not outweigh the compelling objections; the Respondents' application disclosed no reasonable grounds for success; an injunction is appropriate to restrain ongoing breach of planning control.

Parties
Applicant: Dacorum Borough Council; Respondents: George Purcell and Others; First Interested Party: British Waterways Board; Second Interested Party: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Planning Appeal / Judgment on Application to Strike Out and for Injunction
Outcome
Application to strike out granted; injunction granted.
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Enforcement Notice, Injunctions, Article 8 ECHR, Gypsy and Traveller Rights, Environmental Protection, Reservoir Safety
Planning Law Administrative Law Human Rights Planning Permission Enforcement Notice Injunctions Article 8 ECHR Gypsy and Traveller Rights +2 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dacorum Borough Council

Applicant

George Purcell and Others

Respondents

British Waterways Board

First Interested Party

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Second Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Planning Appeal / Judgment on Application to Strike Out and for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Planning Inspector erred in concluding that the reservoir would have to be upgraded if planning permission was granted
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to consider whether objections to the proposed development were outweighed by other material considerations, including Article 8 ECHR rights
  3. 3 Whether the application disclosed any reasonable grounds for success

Ratio Decidendi

The Planning Inspector's decision was adequately reasoned and correct in law; the cost of upgrading the reservoir would be grossly disproportionate to the benefit to the Respondents; Article 8 ECHR rights, even if expressly considered, would not outweigh the compelling objections; the Respondents' application disclosed no reasonable grounds for success; an injunction is appropriate to restrain ongoing breach of planning control.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out granted; injunction granted.

Orders

  • Respondents' application struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) as disclosing no reasonable grounds for success.
  • Injunction granted against Respondents, not to take effect before midnight on 31 July 2009.