Regina v Leominster District Council ex parte Pothecary: CA 28 Oct 1997

A building was erected without planning permission. The local planning authority chose not to serve an enforcement notice but rather had invited an application for retrospective planning permission.
Held: The fact that a building has already been constructed before planning permission is sought might lawfully be regarded as a consideration in favour of a permission which would not otherwise have been granted. Whether a proposed development complies with the local planning policy is a matter for the Local Authority, not a matter of law for the courts to decide. It was not unlawful for a planning authority to allow for likelihood of enforcement action when deciding on a retrospective planning application. The Inspector was entitled to adopt the process of analysis which seemed to him to be appropriate to the circumstances of the case.
Schiemann LJ, Robert Walker LJ
Gazette 26-Nov-1997, Times 18-Nov-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2585, [1998] JPL 335, [1997] 76 P and CR 346
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Leominster District Council ex parte Patricia Pothecary Admn 16-Jan-1997
Retrospective application for planning rather than enforcement – lawfulness. . .

Cited by:
Appealed toRegina v Leominster District Council ex parte Patricia Pothecary Admn 16-Jan-1997
Retrospective application for planning rather than enforcement – lawfulness. . .
CitedSouth Buckinghamshire District Council and Another v Porter (No 2) HL 1-Jul-2004
Mrs Porter was a Romany gipsy who bought land in the Green Belt in 1985 and lived there with her husband in breach of planning control. The inspector gave her personal permission to continue use, and it had been appealed and cross appealed on the . .
CitedThe First Secretary of State, Grant Doe, Gregory Yates, Paul Eames v Chichester District Council CA 29-Sep-2004
The appellants challenged a decision to grant planning consent for a private gipsy with mobile homes. The issue was whether the council in refusing permission and in issuing enforcement proceedings, had infringed the applicants human rights. The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 April 2021; Ref: scu.142984