UK Construction and Law
A change in national policy does not compel a council to determine a second application where an enforcement notice is already in force
By Staff Writer | 21 August 2026
The Planning Court has dismissed a challenge to a council's refusal, under section 70C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to determine a retrospective application made after the national policy on the Green Belt changed. The introduction of grey belt, a widened definition of gypsies and travellers and the availability of the tilted balance were not considerations the council was obliged to take into account.
The King (on the application of Teresa Baker) v Reigate and Banstead Borough Council [2026] EWHC 2124 (Admin) was handed down by Timothy Corner KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, on 11 August 2026. The land is at Pickett's Yard, Pickett's Lane, Salfords in Surrey, occupied as a gypsy and traveller caravan site.
Three years of enforcement before the second application
Operational development was carried out and the use of the land changed in about April 2022, in both cases without planning permission. A retrospective application followed on 15 April 2022 and was refused on 21 October 2022. The council issued two enforcement notices on 31 May 2022, one against the operational development and one against the residential use, and obtained an injunction under section 187B. Appeals against the refusal and against both notices were dismissed by a decision letter of 11 May 2023, in which the inspector extended the compliance periods to twelve months to cease the use and thirteen months to remove the operational development. Those periods expired in May and June 2024. The occupiers remained and the steps required by the notices were not taken.
A second retrospective application was made in April 2025. The judgment gives its date as 14 April 2025 at paragraph 1 and 15 April 2025 at paragraph 16, so no day is asserted here. It was supported by a planning statement relying on changes to national policy: the introduction of grey belt, a widened definition of gypsies and travellers, and the availability of the tilted balance. On 12 June 2025 the council declined to determine it under section 70C, saying that changes to national policy are not infrequent and do not compel reconsideration of a case, that it had no unmet need for traveller pitches, that the site was neither previously developed land nor identified as grey belt, and that the personal circumstances relied on had not changed materially since the appeal.
Two 2026 decisions settled the point
Permission was refused on the papers in February 2026 and granted on renewal on 2 April 2026. Two judgments handed down after that grant, Moran in April and Connors in June, then decided the question.
Moran established that there is no obligation on the authority to reconsider the planning merits on a new planning application where there is a prior enforcement notice.
Timothy Corner KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
Connors went further and held that there is no such obligation even where the planning merits have changed, for example because of a change in policy. It concerned a caravan site, unfulfilled enforcement notices and reliance on the same three policy changes relied on here. The judge rejected the attempt to distinguish it. It made no difference that these families moved onto the land before the notices were issued and before the policy changed, because what matters is which policy changes are relied on and whether they were obviously material. In both cases the notices had not been complied with, so there had been no reset.
Section 70C confers a broad discretion, and a challenge to its exercise on irrationality grounds faces a high hurdle. A decision is irrational if the council leaves out an obviously material consideration, and the December 2024 policy changes were held not to be one. The judge also declined to accept that the earlier appeal decision showed the site should be categorised as grey belt.
Proportionality, and where it leaves an occupier
The third ground was that the decision breached Article 8. The judge assessed proportionality on the assumption that the second application had a realistic prospect of success, although he held he could not decide whether it did. He took account of the vulnerability of the gypsy and traveller community, the absence of alternative accommodation found by the inspector, and the health and schooling circumstances of the families. Refusing to determine the application was the least intrusive measure available without defeating the purpose of section 70C, and struck a fair balance. The claim was rejected.
The practical reading for anyone advising on unauthorised development is unchanged by the new Framework. Policy that improves the merits of a scheme is worth nothing while an unfulfilled enforcement notice sits on the land, because the authority is entitled to refuse to look at the merits at all. Complying with the notice is what buys the right to be heard again.