Planning permission — Proposed green belt — Enforcement notice — Appeals — Stop notice — Application to quash decision to issue stop notice — Whether decision unlawful — High Court holding that local authority entitled to issue stop notice before end of period for compliance with enforcement notice — Application dismissed
The appeal site in Brooklands, Weybridge, Surrey, was leased by the applicants to hold Sunday markets relying on their general right to hold one for 14 days a year. Planning permission to use the site for a Sunday market each week was refused. An enforcement notice was issued. Appeals were lodged. The Brooklands central area was designated as green belt in the local plan. Following a successful High Court challenge by the site owners that part of the local plan dealing with green belt policy was deleted. A review by the county council reinstated the designation of Brooklands as green belt. An inspector concluded that the proposed area of green belt in its present undeveloped state was a strategically valuable component on the open corridor along the River Wey separating nearby towns and this was a weighty justification for green belt designation. The planning and enforcement notice appeals were later dismissed. Appeals to the High Court were pending.
On August 1 1994 the local authority issued a stop notice requiring the cessation of use of the land for markets. The applicants sought judicial review to quash the decision to issue that notice. Under section 183 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, where a local planning authority considered it expedient that any relevant activity should cease before the expiry of the period for compliance with an enforcement notice, they might when they served the enforcement notice or afterwards, serve a stop notice prohibiting the carrying out of that activity. Circular 21/91, Annex 3, paras 19-21 provided that the local authority should assess the foreseeable costs and benefits likely to result from a stop notice; and that the notice should prohibit only what was essential to safeguard amenity or public safety in the neighbourhood or prevent serious or irreversible harm to the environment in the surrounding area.
Held The application was dismissed.
1. The provisions of a circular were relevant to the decision under section 183 if they related to the expediency of serving a stop notice. But they were advisory and not binding on the local authority if they could show adequate reasons not to follow their advice.
2. This was a green belt case. There was no activity which, on the evidence, was having any serious effect on the amenity of the local residents or on the environment. The local authority were thus entitled to decide that it was not appropriate to carry out the sort of costs/benefits assessment implied in Annex 3.
3. The local authority were familiar with the site and were aware of the popularity of the Sunday markets. They were aware of the effect of the issue of the stop notice on the market operators, traders and customers. Against that the council had to weigh the seriousness of the green belt objection. On the evidence, they had done so and were not required to go into a more detailed economic exercise.
4. It was not unreasonable for the local authority to rely on the inspector’s decision, which confirmed and strengthened their view about the importance of green belt and the inappropriateness of the use of the land.
5. It was for the local authority to decide on the expediency of service of a stop notice. The court on this application should not substitute its own view.
Anthony Dinkin QC and Morag Ellis (instructed by Dawson Mason & Carr) appeared for the applicants; James de Cardonnel Findlay (instructed by the solicitor to the council) appeared for the respondents.
