Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for the Home Office & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1076 (KB)
Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor
23 June 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 727
Court of Appeal
A council tried to stop the government from using an airbase to house asylum seekers without planning permission. A court ruled the council needed the government's permission to even bring the case, so the council lost.
Key Facts
- •Braintree District Council appealed the High Court's decision to strike out its injunction application under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the Home Secretary's plan to house asylum seekers at RAF Wethersfield.
- •The Home Secretary intended to use permitted development rights under Class Q of the GPDO.
- •The site is Crown land, and the council did not obtain consent from the Ministry of Defence, the 'appropriate authority' under section 296A.
- •The High Court struck out the application due to the lack of consent under section 296A.
- •The appeal concerned the High Court's jurisdiction under section 187B and the applicability of Class Q permitted development rights.
Legal Principles
Crown land is subject to planning control but requires consent from the appropriate authority for enforcement actions.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 292A, 293A, 296A
Local planning authorities can apply for injunctions to restrain breaches of planning control under section 187B.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 187B
Statutory interpretation requires considering the purpose of the legislation and its context.
[2022] EWCA Civ 1579, [2018] UKSC 30
The Crown is generally not bound by statute unless expressly stated or necessarily implied.
Common Law
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the injunction application under section 187B because the council did not obtain the required consent from the Ministry of Defence under section 296A. The application for an injunction was considered a 'step taken for the purposes of enforcement' requiring such consent.
Class Q Point not determined.
The court found it unnecessary and undesirable to address the applicability of Class Q permitted development rights as the jurisdictional issue was determinative of the appeal. Any ruling would have been obiter dicta.
Similar Cases
West Lindsey District Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Defence & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1400 (Admin)
Gabriel Clarke-Holland, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3140 (Admin)
Carallyn Parkes, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 2580 (Admin)
The Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2055 (Admin)