Woking Borough Council, R (on the application of) v Keenan

On an appeal by way of case stated, the reviewing court must respect the magistrates’ factual findings but may quash a decision reached on inadequate or perverse reasoning. Where the evidence of the only relevant witness indicates that prohibited works were taking place, a conclusion that no works occurred requires an express and reasoned rejection of that evidence. Merely preferring the defendant’s account does not explain why the contrary evidence is rejected. Under section 187 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the court must consider separately whether the defendant personally contravened a stop notice and whether he caused or permitted others to contravene it.

Woking Borough Council appealed by way of case stated from the dismissal by the North West Surrey Magistrates’ Court of an information alleging that Patrick James Keenan had contravened a stop notice contrary to section 187(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The stop notice prohibited unauthorised operational development, namely construction of a hardcore track. The magistrates accepted the defendant’s evidence that he was elsewhere on the relevant date and concluded that no construction work had occurred. They did not address whether other persons had carried out work with his authority, as contemplated by section 187(1B). The central issues were whether the magistrates’ conclusion was open to them on the evidence and whether they had given adequate reasons.

1. Disposition. The magistrates’ decision was quashed and the matter was remitted for reconsideration by a differently constituted bench.

2. This was an appeal by way of case stated, not a rehearing on the merits. The magistrates were entitled to accept the defendant’s evidence that he had gone to work elsewhere. However, their conclusion that no work had taken place on the site was perverse unless they rejected the evidence of the Council’s enforcement officer, Mr Travis.

3. Mr Travis was the only witness able to give evidence about events on the site after the defendant had left. He said that he had seen work in progress involving levelling with a JCB. The absence of photographs of the work and the failure to speak to persons present did not answer that evidence. The magistrates could have found that Mr Travis was mistaken or untruthful, but they did not do so or explain why his evidence was rejected.

4. Following Northumberland County Council v PR Manufacturing Limited [2004] EWHC 112 (Admin), reasons must identify the main contentious issues and explain how they were resolved so that the parties can understand why the decision was reached. The case stated did not satisfy that requirement.

5. Section 187(1B) required the magistrates to consider separately whether the defendant had caused or permitted other persons to carry out works in contravention of the stop notice. That issue involved factual questions, including whether the persons seen working were acting on their own initiative or at the defendant’s request. The magistrates failed to consider it because they had incorrectly concluded that no work had occurred.

• North West Surrey Magistrates’ Court: dismissed the information alleging contravention of a stop notice.
• High Court (Administrative Court): on appeal by way of case stated, quashed the magistrates’ decision and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted bench.