Background
Teresa Baker, an Irish Traveller, and her extended family occupied Pickett’s Yard in Surrey as a Gypsy/Traveller caravan site from April 2022, after carrying out operational works and changing the site’s use without planning permission. The council refused a retrospective application and served enforcement notices. In May 2023, a planning inspector dismissed Baker’s planning and enforcement appeals, finding substantial Green Belt harm and intentional unauthorised development, notwithstanding the families’ Article 8 rights and lack of alternative accommodation.
The enforcement notices required the residential use to cease and the land to be restored by June 2024, but the families remained. In April 2025, Baker made a second retrospective application, relying on revised national policy on “grey belt” land, an expanded Traveller definition, and the possible application of the tilted balance. The council used its power under section 70C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to decline to determine it because the site was already subject to enforcement notices.
The Court’s Holding
Deputy High Court Judge Timothy Corner KC dismissed the judicial-review claim. Section 70C gives a planning authority a broad discretion to avoid a second determination of the planning merits of development already covered by a pre-existing enforcement notice. The revised national policy and Baker’s case on Traveller-pitch need were not “obviously material” considerations that the council was legally required to consider before exercising that discretion, particularly where the enforcement notices had not been complied with.
In any event, the council had considered the new policy arguments sufficiently. Its decision addressed grey belt status, unmet need and the families’ personal circumstances. The court rejected the contention that the inspector’s earlier decision established that the site was grey belt land, and held that the council was not required to give a fuller merits assessment when deciding whether to determine the application.
The refusal was also proportionate under Article 8. The court recognised the serious effects on the families, including their cultural way of life, lack of alternative accommodation, and particular health and educational needs. But it held that declining to determine the repeat application was the least intrusive way to achieve section 70C’s legitimate purpose and fairly balanced those interests against effective planning enforcement.
Key Takeaways
- Section 70C can lawfully be used to prevent repeat planning-merits determinations where an enforcement notice remains in force.
- A change in planning policy does not, by itself, oblige an authority to determine a further retrospective application.
- Article 8 requires careful consideration of Gypsy and Traveller families’ circumstances, but does not necessarily displace the public interest in enforcing planning control.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Court of Appeal’s recent guidance on section 70C to a Traveller-site case and confirms that the provision is not a “fresh claim” mechanism requiring authorities to reassess planning merits whenever policy changes. Authorities may consider those merits, but ordinarily retain discretion to refuse a repeat application while enforcement action remains unresolved.
For occupiers, the case underlines the importance of compliance with enforcement notices. Even substantial personal and Article 8 considerations will not necessarily make a refusal to reopen planning merits disproportionate.