Carespec Ltd v Wolverhampton City Council

Judicial review is generally inappropriate where effective statutory remedies are available and, in particular, where a temporary stop notice has expired. A temporary stop notice may be challenged in appropriate urgent circumstances while it remains in force, but expiry ordinarily removes any useful judicial-review remedy.

For planning purposes, whether premises are being used as a hostel does not depend on a fixed number of occupants. The relevant question is whether there is, or is likely to be, significant or substantial hostel use. In deciding whether immediate action is expedient under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, a local planning authority has a relatively wide latitude where sufficient information supports its view.

The claimant operated a hotel in Wolverhampton. The defendant served a temporary stop notice alleging an unauthorised material change of use from hotel to hostel, or mixed hotel and hostel use, arising from the proposed accommodation of asylum seekers.

Interim relief was refused and permission to seek judicial review was granted only on two planning grounds. By the hearing, the 28-day notice had expired. The claimant nevertheless pursued the claim and sought, at a late stage, a declaration that the notice had been unlawfully issued. The issues were whether judicial review remained available, whether the proposed use amounted to hostel use requiring planning permission, and whether immediate action was expedient.

1. Judicial review and alternative remedies. The proceedings were misconceived. Compensation under section 171H of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, an application for planning permission under section 62 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and an application for a certificate of lawfulness under section 191 were available and were of greater practical value. The court was prepared to accept that judicial review of a temporary stop notice might be appropriate in some circumstances, but the issue did not need finally to be decided.
2. Expiry and late amendment. If judicial review were available, the notice would ordinarily need to remain in force for the remedy to have practical utility. Any urgent interim relief would have to be sought well within the 28-day period. The notice had expired, interim relief had been refused, and the proposed amendment seeking a declaration was late and lacked utility. Permission to amend was refused.
3. Hostel use. Applying Commercial and Residential Property Development Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1982] JPL 513 and Panayi v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another [1985] 50 P&CR 109, the court held that the question did not turn on precise numbers or the presence of dormitories. The relevant issue was significant or substantial use as a hostel. The proposed occupation involved a substantial proportion of the rooms, shared occupation by strangers, residence as the occupants’ home, modest inclusive charges, payment by a public-body agent, transience, and no local connection. Those matters provided reasonable grounds to conclude that there would be a material change of use requiring planning permission.
4. Expediency and rationality. The defendant had genuine information about the concentration of other hostels, local concerns about disorder and anti-social behaviour, and the likely effect of accommodating significant numbers of asylum seekers. Section 171E gave the authority a relatively wide latitude. The decision was rational because sufficient information supported the view that it was expedient to stop the activity immediately. The claim was dismissed.

The judgment records that interim relief was refused by HHJ David Cooke on 13 November 2015 and permission was granted, limited to two planning grounds, on 8 December 2015. No appeal from an earlier judgment is stated.