Wingrove v Stratford-On-Avon District Council

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff occupies a farm in open countryside used for an equestrian business. Since 2004, the Plaintiff made multiple planning applications to Company B (the local council), some granted and others refused. The Plaintiff has a history of enforcement actions relating to unauthorized use and development on the farm, including fines for environmental breaches and non-compliance with planning notices. In 2008 and 2009, Company B observed the construction of a timber-clad building used for residential accommodation without planning permission. An enforcement notice was issued in June 2012 requiring cessation of residential use and demolition of the building, which the Plaintiff did not appeal.

The Plaintiff submitted retrospective planning applications in 2012 and 2013, both declined by Company B under section 70C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the 1990 Act), which allows refusal to determine applications related to pre-existing enforcement notices. Judicial review proceedings were initiated but compromised in 2014, with Company B acknowledging procedural failings. A third retrospective application was submitted in March 2014 and again declined under section 70C. The Plaintiff challenged this refusal by judicial review.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the local planning authority properly exercised its discretion under section 70C of the 1990 Act to decline to determine the Plaintiff's retrospective planning applications.
2. The correct interpretation and application of section 70C in relation to retrospective planning applications made following enforcement notices.
3. Whether the Council correctly applied relevant planning policies, including the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and local policy CTY.13 on equestrian activities, in deciding to decline the application.
4. Whether the enforcement notice was valid or whether the building was immune from enforcement due to the passage of four years under section 171B(1) of the 1990 Act.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Council's exercise of discretion under section 70C was flawed due to inadequate reasons and failure to consider relevant factors.
• The statutory purpose of section 70C is not to prevent determination of retrospective applications where the development complies with the development plan or is acceptable in planning terms.
• The Council failed to properly distinguish between the development subject to the enforcement notice and the development subject to the retrospective application, particularly regarding the proposed occupancy condition limiting use to equestrian workers.
• The Council incorrectly applied the NPPF and local planning policies, including paragraph 55 of the NPPF concerning isolated new homes in the countryside, which the Plaintiff contends does not apply to the units at issue.
• The Plaintiff did not appeal the enforcement notice due to bad advice, and her motives for applying are not to delay enforcement but based on legitimate planning considerations.
• The enforcement notice should not have been issued as the building was allegedly complete more than four years prior to the notice, rendering it immune from enforcement.

Defendant's Arguments

• The Council properly exercised its wide discretionary power under section 70C to decline to determine the retrospective applications to prevent delay in enforcement action.
• The Plaintiff had the opportunity to appeal the enforcement notice but did not do so despite clear notice and a history of engagement with the planning process.
• The retrospective applications were not genuine attempts to overcome previous planning objections but were likely tactical to delay enforcement proceedings.
• The Council correctly applied planning policies, including the NPPF and local policy CTY.13, concluding no essential need for the residential units and that the development was not a sustainable form of development.
• The enforcement notice was valid as the building was not substantially complete at the relevant time, supported by photographic evidence and the Plaintiff’s own admissions.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R (Trashorfield Limited) v Bristol City Council [2014] EWHC 757 (Admin)	Standards for adequacy of reasons in planning decisions addressed to a knowledgeable readership.	The court accepted that the decision letter and officer’s report provided adequate reasons addressed to a knowledgeable readership and that the challenge was in substance an attack on planning judgment.
Newtoreva-Goremsandu v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWHC 793 (Admin)	Burden of proof on claimant to show that development was substantially complete more than four years before enforcement notice to claim immunity.	The court held that the Plaintiff failed to discharge this burden and accepted the Council’s planning judgment that the building was not substantially complete before the relevant date.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged that section 70C of the 1990 Act confers a broad discretion on local planning authorities to decline to determine retrospective planning applications related to enforcement notices, primarily aimed at preventing delay in enforcement action. The legislative history supports exercising this discretion, especially where the applicant’s motives suggest delay.

The court recognized exceptions where discretion should not be exercised, such as where the development is plainly compliant or can be made acceptable by conditions, but emphasized that section 70C is not a gateway to consider planning merits but a power to refuse determination of such merits.

Applying these principles, the court found no evidence that the Plaintiff was unaware of the right to appeal or that the discretion was exercised unreasonably. The Plaintiff had a history of engagement with planning enforcement and did not seek pre-application advice. The Council reasonably inferred the retrospective applications aimed to delay enforcement.

Regarding planning policy, the court accepted the Council’s professional judgment that the development constituted new residential buildings without essential need under local policies and the NPPF, and that the residential nature was not materially altered by the proposed occupancy condition. The Council’s application of policy was proper and involved legitimate planning judgment.

The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s claim of immunity from enforcement, finding the building was not substantially complete more than four years before the enforcement notice, supported by evidence and the Plaintiff’s own responses to the Council’s inquiries.

Finally, the court found the reasons provided by the Council were adequate and addressed to a knowledgeable audience, rendering the Plaintiff’s criticisms unarguable and effectively challenging planning judgment rather than legal error.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Plaintiff's application for judicial review.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Council’s refusal to determine the Plaintiff’s retrospective planning applications under section 70C stands, allowing enforcement action to proceed. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling reaffirms the discretionary nature of section 70C and the proper scope of planning judgment in enforcement-related applications.