Keenan v Woking Borough Council & Anor [2016] EWHC 427 (Admin) (08 March 2016)

Keenan v Woking Borough Council & Anor [2016] EWHC 427 (Admin) (08 March 2016)

The Inspector was correct to limit her consideration under ground (f) to remedying the breach of planning control, as the enforcement notice was not aimed at remedying injury to amenity; the mistake regarding Mrs Keenan's residence was immaterial and did not cause unfairness; and no deemed planning permission for the track arose because the development was not permitted under Part 6 of the GPDO, regardless of the Council's failure to respond within 28 days.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 427 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Patrick Keenan; First Respondent: Woking Borough Council; Second Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Planning Statutory Appeal (section 289 TCPA 1990) / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notices, Green Belt, Permitted Development, Material Change of Use, Mistake of Fact, Prior Approval Procedures
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Enforcement Notices Green Belt Permitted Development Material Change of Use Mistake of Fact +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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Keenan

Appellant

Woking Borough Council

First Respondent

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Planning Statutory Appeal (section 289 TCPA 1990) / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in her approach to ground (f) (excessive steps) in the enforcement notice appeal
  2. 2 Whether a material mistake of fact regarding Mrs Keenan's residence rendered the decision unfair
  3. 3 Whether planning permission for the track was deemed granted due to Council's failure to respond to prior approval application

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was correct to limit her consideration under ground (f) to remedying the breach of planning control, as the enforcement notice was not aimed at remedying injury to amenity; the mistake regarding Mrs Keenan's residence was immaterial and did not cause unfairness; and no deemed planning permission for the track arose because the development was not permitted under Part 6 of the GPDO, regardless of the Council's failure to respond within 28 days.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed