Keeley, R (On the Application Of) v Canterbury Crown Court

A notice under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 may properly address land whose condition adversely affects local amenity. However, the steps required must not exceed what is necessary to remedy that condition. A requirement expressed literally to remove every boat, caravan or motorcycle may be excessive where some items are reasonably incidental to ordinary residential use. The court may clarify or amend the order so that it reflects that limitation and leaves disputed questions of reasonable residential use for determination by the court, rather than conferring an unnecessarily broad discretion on the local planning authority.

Canterbury City Council served Mr Keeley with a notice under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, requiring the removal of vehicle parts, containers, scrap motorbikes, boats and caravans from his residential property. His appeal to the magistrates’ court was dismissed. The Canterbury Crown Court dismissed his further appeal, while extending the compliance period.

Mr Keeley sought judicial review. He accepted that the land had been found to be in a condition adversely affecting amenity, but challenged the requirement to remove all boats, caravans and motorcycles. The central issue was whether that requirement exceeded what was necessary, given the ordinary residential use and reasonable enjoyment of the property.

1. The claim succeeded. The Crown Court was entitled to find that section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 had been properly invoked and that the condition of the land adversely affected amenity. That factual finding could not be reopened on judicial review. [2003] EWHC 2603 (Admin) [9], [17].

2. Section 217(1)(c) required consideration of whether the notice’s requirements exceeded what was necessary to prevent the adverse effect on amenity. The requirement to remove all boats, caravans and motorcycles was excessive if read literally. Some such items could reasonably be kept on land as an adjunct to ordinary residential use, particularly where the property was sufficiently large and the items were not visible from outside. [2003] EWHC 2603 (Admin) [7]–[8], [18]–[19].

3. The council’s indication that it would not treat items incidental to normal residential use as a breach did not sufficiently clarify the operative order. An issue about what was reasonably incidental should remain capable of determination by the court. The order was therefore amended to require removal of the specified body panels, scrap motor parts, vehicle spares and tyres, while limiting boats, caravans and motorcycles to what was reasonable for normal residential use, having regard to the size and occupation of the residence and the effect of visible items on the area. [2003] EWHC 2603 (Admin) [10]–[20].

4. Under CPR 54.19(3), Mr Justice Collins considered it appropriate to amend the order himself. The council was given 14 days to make written submissions on the wording, with the order suspended meanwhile. The claimant was awarded reasonable costs in principle, subject to the council’s right to object and to receipt of an itemised claim. [2003] EWHC 2603 (Admin) [21], [34].

• Magistrates’ court: dismissed Mr Keeley’s appeal against the section 215 notice.
• Canterbury Crown Court: dismissed the further appeal, but extended the period for compliance.
• High Court (Administrative Court): granted relief and amended the order.