Sheridan & Ors, R (On the Application of) v Basildon District Council

A local planning authority may use section 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure compliance with effective enforcement notices, even where occupiers have no lawful alternative site. The decision remains reviewable for proportionality, but substantial weight must be given to public confidence in planning control and enforcement of the criminal law. Individual health, education, family-life and care needs must be considered, including children’s best interests as a primary consideration. Those matters do not create a right to remain in continuing breach of planning control.

Three rolled-up judicial review claims challenged Basildon District Council’s decisions to proceed under section 178 against unauthorised traveller development at Dale Farm. The claimants relied on Article 8, children’s welfare, equality duties, housing-site need, alleged errors concerning the Regional Spatial Strategy, negotiations, environmental-impact assessment and the limited scope of the enforcement notices.

Planning permission, including temporary permission, had repeatedly been refused and the enforcement notices had become effective. The central issues were whether the decisions were out of time to challenge and whether removal was unlawful or disproportionate while alternative sites remained unavailable or under consideration.

1. Delay. The May 2011 resolution was the composite decision to use section 178. Later letters and delegated reconsiderations dealt with implementation and genuinely new personal information; they did not reopen the original decision or restart the judicial review period. Most challenges were therefore out of time or insufficiently prompt.
2. Material considerations. The Council had failed to give proper weight to the continuing Regional Spatial Strategy policy H3 following R (Cala Homes (South) Limited) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWCA Civ 1600, and had not complied with section 255 of the Housing Act 2004. Those errors would not have altered the outcome. The planning merits of Dale Farm had repeatedly been resolved against residential use, and speculative alternative sites could not justify a stay.
3. Proportionality. Section 178 action was reviewable and could be disproportionate. The court balanced interference with home and family life, including health, education and care, against Green Belt, highway and amenity harm and the public interest in maintaining respect for planning control and the criminal law. A high prospect of imminent success at another site, accommodating most or all residents, would be needed to make removal disproportionate.
4. Children and accommodation. The Council had treated children’s welfare as a primary consideration and had conscientiously assessed individual circumstances. Bricks-and-mortar accommodation and operational mitigation were relevant. The absence of a suitable caravan site did not make enforcement unlawful.
5. Order. Permission was refused and each claim dismissed. Costs were awarded to the Council, subject to detailed assessment and the usual legal-aid protection where applicable.