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

This judicial review concerns challenges to Basildon District Council's decisions to enforce extant enforcement notices at Dale Farm by exercising powers under section 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The court treated the May 17, 2011 resolution to authorise delegated action under section 178 as the operative decision and held that many of the claimants' complaints were out of time. Key legal principles applied were the statutory time limits for judicial review, the proper weight to be given to planning decisions and regional spatial strategy evidence (RSS / policy H3), and proportionality under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The judge analysed extensive planning history (multiple enforcement notices, public inquiries and Secretary of State decisions), concluded there was no realistic prospect of planning permission for residential caravans on Dale Farm, and found that the council had lawfully considered personal circumstances, children’s interests and mitigation measures. Challenges based on the Housing Act 2004 duties (section 255), the Children Act duty, alleged failure to assess prospects of alternative sites, and on environmental impact assessment were rejected or held to lack merit. The court refused permission to bring the primary challenges and dismissed the proceedings.

This judgment concerns three closely related claims by occupants of Dale Farm seeking to prevent Basildon District Council from using its powers under section 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to enter plots and carry out steps required by long‑standing enforcement notices (removal of caravans and hardstanding and cessation of residential use). The claimants sought quashing orders, injunctions (including stays of forcible removal) and orders requiring housing needs assessment and strategies under housing legislation.

Background and parties:

• The site at Dale Farm had been the subject of repeated enforcement action, public inquiries and Secretary of State decisions (2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008) upholding enforcement notices and refusing permanent or temporary planning permission. Time for compliance expired in 2005/2006 and the occupiers remained in breach of the notices.
• Basildon District Council resolved on 17 May 2011 to give delegated authority to take action under section 178 and subsequently issued letters and decisions (July–September 2011) setting timetables and dealing with individual personal circumstances.

Nature of the claims and relief sought:

• The claimants sought judicial review of the council's decisions to proceed with direct action, injunctions to prevent removal pending alternative sites or the outcome of related planning applications, and orders requiring assessment and strategy under the Housing Act.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the principal decision (17 May 2011) and subsequent implementation steps were challengeable in time and, if not time‑barred, whether they were unlawful or disproportionate.
• Whether the council had failed to discharge duties under the Housing Act 2004 (section 255), the Children Act 2004 (best interests duty), or the public sector equality duty.
• Whether the council misapplied planning material considerations (including the RSS / policy H3 and the Cala Homes authority), ignored realistic prospects of alternative sites (Church Road; Gardiner Lane) or failed to negotiate; and whether environmental impact assessment obligations arose.
• Whether the interference with Article 8 rights of occupiers was disproportionate in all the circumstances.

Court’s reasoning and conclusion:

• Delay: The judge held many challenges too late. The 17 May 2011 resolution committed the council to taking action under section 178; subsequent letters and mechanics were ancillary. No adequate explanation for the delay in bringing review proceedings was given, so permission was refused in respect of the earlier decision.
• Merits and proportionality: On the merits, the court reviewed the long planning history and repeated inspector and Secretary of State findings that Dale Farm caused serious Green Belt, visual amenity and highway harm. The judge found no realistic prospect of planning permission for continued residential caravan use on Dale Farm and concluded that enforcement under section 178 was a legitimate, proportional means of vindicating planning control and the criminal law. The public interest in enforcement and maintaining confidence in the planning system carried substantial weight.
• Other statutory duties and arguments: The court rejected the contention that absence of an effective strategy under section 255 of the Housing Act made enforcement disproportionate in the circumstances. It accepted the local authority had considered children’s welfare and equality duties and rejected the argument that an EIA screening was required for remedial enforcement steps.

Outcome: Permission was refused and the applications were dismissed. The court ordered costs in favour of the council and indicated the practical window for any appeal application to the Court of Appeal.

This was a first instance judicial review. The court refused permission for judicial review and dismissed the applications. The judge held that (i) the main decision of 17 May 2011 to authorise action under section 178 was lawfully taken and many of the claimed grounds were out of time; (ii) in respect of matters not time‑barred the council had lawfully and rationally balanced personal circumstances, children’s interests and the public interest, and enforcement was not disproportionate under Article 8; and (iii) other statutory and procedural complaints (section 255 Housing Act, Children Act duty, EIA argument, negotiation criticism) did not establish unlawfulness or justify a stay of enforcement.