Background
Sam Smith sought planning permission to use agricultural land at Valley Lane, Long Bennington, as a Gypsy and Traveller caravan site comprising 13 pitches. The site lies beside the A1 and a maggot farm. Earlier applications had been refused because of concerns about noise and odour, and a 2021 enforcement notice addressing the unauthorised occupation of Traveller caravans was upheld on appeal in 2022 after the inspector considered expert evidence, the shortage of Traveller sites and the occupants’ personal circumstances.
In February 2025, Smith submitted a further application supported by new noise, odour and ecological reports, proposed mitigation measures and information about different occupants. South Kesteven District Council declined to determine it under section 70C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, concluding that it concerned matters covered by the enforcement notice and was not materially different from the proposals already considered. Smith renewed an application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings, alleging failures concerning the new evidence, environmental-permit conditions, policy and pitch-supply changes, human rights, equality duties and a separate planning appeal.
The Court’s Holding
Deputy High Court Judge Karen Ridge refused permission on every ground because none was arguable. Applying the two-stage approach to section 70C, and the Court of Appeal’s decision in R (Moran) v Medway Council, the court held that the council was not required to conduct a fresh assessment of the full planning merits. Its task was to consider whether the new material raised points warranting reconsideration, subject to rationality and other public-law requirements.
The council rationally concluded that the proposed bund, acoustic fence and new assessments did not materially alter the earlier noise and odour concerns. Its environmental protection officer had considered the mitigation and the maggot farm’s permit conditions, and permissibly found that the new arguments did not justify reopening the planning merits. The council was also not required to redo the planning balance by separately weighing pitch shortages, policy changes and the new occupants’ circumstances.
The fair-hearing and Article 8 arguments depended on the unsuccessful contention that circumstances had materially changed. The council had sufficiently considered the Gypsy and Traveller status and personal circumstances of the occupants for purposes of the public sector equality duty. A recent appeal concerning noise at a different site was not an obviously material consideration, and the council could not be faulted for failing to consider a reduced-pitch proposal that Smith had never made.
Key Takeaways
- Section 70C permits a planning authority to decline to determine an application concerning matters previously covered by enforcement action on the same land.
- When exercising that power, an authority need not conduct a full planning-merits review; it may ask broadly whether new evidence or circumstances justify reconsideration.
- The weight given to relevant considerations is generally for the planning authority, and judicial review requires an arguable public-law error rather than disagreement with its planning judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms the high threshold for challenging a local planning authority’s use of section 70C. Applicants cannot ordinarily compel a fresh merits assessment merely by submitting updated expert reports, new mitigation proposals or different personal circumstances where the authority rationally concludes that the central planning harms remain materially unchanged.
It also illustrates that equality and Convention rights remain relevant to the exercise of section 70C, but do not automatically require determination of a repeat application. The authority must have lawful regard to those matters, while the court’s role remains supervisory.