Ian Caldwell & Anor v The Secretary of State for Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2053 (Admin)
Devonhurst Investments Limited, R (on the application of) v Luton Borough Council
28 April 2023
[2023] EWHC 978 (Admin)
High Court
A company challenged a council's order to tear down flats it built without proper permission. The court sided with the council, saying it considered the impact on residents and the need to follow planning rules. The council didn't need detailed information about each resident to make the decision.
Key Facts
- •Devonhurst Investments Ltd challenged Luton Borough Council's enforcement notice for converting Shire House from office to 109 residential units.
- •The Council's enforcement notice cited a breach of planning control, including unauthorized change of use and building works.
- •Devonhurst argued the Council disregarded its Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), best interests of children, Article 8 ECHR rights, and the expediency test.
- •The Council argued the prior approval granted did not authorize the extent of the works undertaken and that the residential use conflicted with local planning policies.
- •The Council's Officer's Report addressed the PSED, best interests of children, Article 8 ECHR, and expediency, concluding that enforcement was justified despite potential disruption to residents.
- •Devonhurst appealed the enforcement notice under s.174 of the TCPA; this judicial review focused on whether the decision to issue the notice was lawful.
Legal Principles
A planning authority can issue an enforcement notice if a planning control breach occurred and it's expedient.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s.172
Public authorities must have due regard to the PSED under the Equality Act 2010 when exercising functions.
Equality Act 2010, s.149
The PSED implies a duty of reasonable inquiry, subject to Wednesbury unreasonableness.
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014; R (Sheakh) v London Borough of Lambeth [2022] EWCA Civ 457
In planning enforcement, expediency considers the advantages and disadvantages to the public interest, balancing costs and effectiveness.
Usk Valley Conservation Group v Brecon Beacons National Park Authority [2010] EWHC 71 (Admin)
Judicial review can challenge enforcement notice decisions on grounds outside the statutory appeal grounds (residual grounds).
R v Wicks [1998] AC 92
A claimant must be a victim under the Human Rights Act 1998, s.7 to bring a claim based on Article 8 ECHR.
Human Rights Act 1998, s.7; Article 34 ECHR
Local authorities must discharge functions having regard to safeguarding and promoting children's welfare.
Children Act 2004, s.11
The best interests of the child are a relevant consideration, not a primary consideration, in proportionality assessments of article 8 interference.
R (SC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2022] AC 223
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The Council's decision to issue the enforcement notice was lawful. It properly considered the PSED, best interests of the children, Article 8 ECHR rights and the expediency test, and its decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable.
Similar Cases
Alexander James Warren Wynne, R (on the application of) v Vale of White Horse District Council
[2024] EWHC 1008 (Admin)
Christine Pratt & Anor, R (on the application of) v Exeter City Council
[2024] EWHC 185 (Admin)
Timothy James House & Anor v Waverley Borough Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3011 (Admin)
London Borough of Lambeth v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2024] EWHC 1391 (Admin)