Forest of Dean District Council v Wildin

Forest of Dean District Council v Wildin

The defendant's building is not permitted development as it has more than one storey; the enforcement notice is valid and has not been complied with; the defendant's personal and financial circumstances, while significant, do not outweigh the public interest in enforcing planning control; an injunction is proportionate and necessary to secure compliance.

Parties
Claimant: Forest of Dean District Council; Defendant: Graham Michael Wildin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application (planning Enforcement) / Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Injunction granted
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Injunction Under Section 187 B Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Permitted Development Rights, Proportionality, Personal Hardship, Article 8 ECHR
Planning Law Administrative Law Human Rights Enforcement Notice Injunction Under Section 187 B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Permitted Development Rights Proportionality Personal Hardship +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Forest of Dean District Council

Claimant

Graham Michael Wildin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application (planning Enforcement) / Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an injunction should be granted to enforce compliance with a planning enforcement notice
  2. 2 Whether the building constitutes permitted development under the GPDO
  3. 3 Whether the grant of an injunction is proportionate given the defendant's personal circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's building is not permitted development as it has more than one storey; the enforcement notice is valid and has not been complied with; the defendant's personal and financial circumstances, while significant, do not outweigh the public interest in enforcing planning control; an injunction is proportionate and necessary to secure compliance.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted

Orders

  • Defendant to carry out the works required by the amended enforcement notice within 18 months
  • Consequential matters to be addressed by written submissions or further hearing if requested within 14 days