Usher, R (On the Application Of) v Forest Heath District Council

Usher, R (On the Application Of) v Forest Heath District Council

The Claimants had ample opportunity to make representations during enforcement appeal and subsequent applications; procedural fairness did not require further invitation or notification before direct action. No legitimate expectation arose from Committee proceedings. The Council's deadline and refusal to allow 'soft strip' were not unreasonable or disproportionate. Alternatives to direct action were considered and direct action was lawful.

Parties
Claimant: Mr David Michael Usher; Claimant: Mrs Ann Margaret Usher; Defendant: Forest Heath District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Direct Action Under Enforcement Notice, Procedural Fairness, Legitimate Expectation, Proportionality, Alternatives to Enforcement, Article 6 ECHR
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Direct Action Under Enforcement Notice Procedural Fairness Legitimate Expectation Proportionality Alternatives to Enforcement +1 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr David Michael Usher

Claimant

Mrs Ann Margaret Usher

Claimant

Forest Heath District Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council breached procedural fairness by failing to invite representations or notify the Claimants of the decision to take direct action
  2. 2 Whether a legitimate expectation arose from the Development Control Committee meeting
  3. 3 Whether the deadline and lack of 'soft strip' was unreasonable and disproportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants had ample opportunity to make representations during enforcement appeal and subsequent applications; procedural fairness did not require further invitation or notification before direct action. No legitimate expectation arose from Committee proceedings. The Council's deadline and refusal to allow 'soft strip' were not unreasonable or disproportionate. Alternatives to direct action were considered and direct action was lawful.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed