Introduction

Wingrove v. Stratford-On-Avon District Council ([2015] WLR(D) 65) is a pivotal judicial review case adjudicated by the England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) on February 12, 2015. The case centers on the claimant, Wingrove, challenging the decision of the Stratford-on-Avon District Council ("the Council") to decline the determination of her retrospective planning application. The Council invoked section 70C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ("the 1990 Act") as the basis for its decision. This judgment is significant as it is the first of its kind to interpret the ambit of section 70C, thereby setting a new precedent in planning law.

Case Background

The claimant, Wingrove, operates an equestrian business at Fox Farm, Bascote Heath, Warwickshire, encompassing 3.2 hectares of permanent pasture and several farm buildings. Since 2004, Wingrove has submitted multiple planning applications to the Council, securing five approvals primarily for residential purposes, while three applications were denied, pertaining to dwelling extensions and holiday accommodations.

Wingrove's history with the Council includes various enforcement actions dating back to 2005, involving issues like caravan stationing, sub-division of dwellings, and improper tipping of work materials. Notably, in September 2009, the Council served a planning contravention notice regarding the erection of two residential units without permission, leading to an enforcement notice in June 2012 requiring cessation and demolition of the unauthorized structures.

In response, Wingrove applied retrospectively for planning permission in July 2012 and again in March 2013, both of which were declined by the Council under section 70C. A third application in March 2014 met the same outcome. Wingrove's subsequent judicial review was dismissed, affirming the Council's appropriate use of section 70C.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court upheld the Council's decision to decline Wingrove's retrospective planning applications under section 70C. The court found that the Council exercised its discretion reasonably and in line with the statutory purpose of preventing the misuse of retrospective applications to delay enforcement actions. The judgment emphasized that Wingrove failed to demonstrate a genuine need for the unauthorized residential units in relation to her equestrian business, and that the Council appropriately applied relevant planning policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in its reasoning.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key cases and authoritative sources to underpin its reasoning:

• Trashorfield Limited v. Bristol City Council [2014] EWHC 757 (Admin): Highlighting the requirement for providing robust planning judgment in decision-making.
• Newtoreva-Goremsandu v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWHC 793 (Admin): Establishing the burden of proof on applicants to demonstrate compliance with planning controls, especially in relation to time limits for enforcement immunity.
• Professor Michael Purdue’s analysis in [2012] JPL 795, discussing the origins and intended purpose of section 70C, emphasizing its role in preventing delays in enforcement actions through tactical retrospective applications.

Legal Reasoning

The court delved into the legislative intent behind section 70C, highlighting that it grants local planning authorities broad discretionary power to decline determining retrospective planning applications. This discretion is primarily aimed at preventing applicants from using retrospective applications to obstruct or delay enforcement actions. The court assessed whether the Council's decision was a genuine exercise of planning judgment or an arbitrary use of discretionary power.

In Wingrove's case, the Council's reasoning was deemed sound as the claimant exhibited a history of planning infractions and failed to establish a compelling need for the unauthorized residential units. The Court noted that the claimant did not sufficiently differentiate her retrospective applications from the enforcement notice's specifications, nor did she provide adequate evidence to satisfy policy CTY.13 regarding equestrian activities.

Additionally, the Court observed that the claimant's failure to appeal the enforcement notice and the lack of pre-application discussions supported the Council's stance that the retrospective application was likely a strategic move to delay enforcement rather than a bona fide attempt to rectify planning compliance.

Impact

This judgment significantly clarifies the application of section 70C, affirming that local planning authorities possess the authority to decline retrospective planning applications aimed at circumventing enforcement actions. It reinforces the principle that retrospective applications should not be a tool for delaying legitimate enforcement processes. Future cases will reference this judgment to ascertain the appropriate exercise of discretion under section 70C, ensuring that planning control integrity is maintained and that enforcement actions are not unduly hindered.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Wingrove v. Stratford-On-Avon District Council judgment serves as a crucial precedent in the interpretation and application of section 70C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. By upholding the Council's decision to decline retrospective planning applications aimed at circumventing enforcement actions, the High Court reinforced the discretionary power of local planning authorities to maintain the integrity of the planning system. This case underscores the necessity for applicants to adhere to proper planning procedures and discourages strategic misuse of retrospective applications to delay or obstruct enforcement efforts. Consequently, it fortifies the statutory framework ensuring that planning controls are effectively enforced, promoting orderly and sustainable development.