Keenan v Woking Borough Council & Anor

Keenan v Woking Borough Council & Anor

The Inspector correctly identified the statutory purpose of the enforcement notice steps as remedying the breach of planning control, not injury to amenity, and was not required to consider excessiveness on amenity grounds. The mistake regarding Mrs Keenan's residence was immaterial and did not cause unfairness. The Council's failure to respond to the prior approval application did not result in deemed planning permission because the development was not permitted under Class A of the GPDO.

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
Appeal Under Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Appeal From Inspector's Decision on Enforcement Notices
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notices, Permitted Development, Green Belt Policy, Mistake of Fact, Prior Approval Procedure
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notices Permitted Development Green Belt Policy Mistake of Fact Prior Approval Procedure

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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

Appeal Under Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Appeal From Inspector's Decision on Enforcement Notices

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in handling the ground (f) appeal regarding excessiveness of steps required by enforcement notice
  2. 2 Whether a material mistake of fact regarding Mrs Keenan's residence gave rise to unfairness
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector erred in law regarding deemed planning permission for the track due to Council's failure to respond to prior approval application

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector correctly identified the statutory purpose of the enforcement notice steps as remedying the breach of planning control, not injury to amenity, and was not required to consider excessiveness on amenity grounds. The mistake regarding Mrs Keenan's residence was immaterial and did not cause unfairness. The Council's failure to respond to the prior approval application did not result in deemed planning permission because the development was not permitted under Class A of the GPDO.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed