Image from Google Jackets

Staffordshire CC v Challinor and another [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2007] EWCA Civ 864, 21 June 2007. The appellant local authority (S) appealed against failure of its attempts to stop a breach of planning control, and to recover costs from the respondent (C). C owned land of around two hectares. Within this, an area of half a hectare had permitted use as an area for storage of materials from a plant contractor for recycling. S had refused to allow permission for a part of the rest of the land to be used for the importation, sorting and handling of the waste. S obtained a notice to this effect, but failed at first to obtain an injunction enforcing it. Upon the granting a temporary injunction, S argued that the certificate could remove lawful use rights. "Held": The enforcement notice superseded C's lawful use certificate, which applied only to a given point in time. The inspector upholding the enforcement notice could have varied it to give precedence to the lawful use certificate, but saw no cause to do so. C's non-compliance had been absolute prior to the temporary injunction, and remained partial afterwards. S was therefore entitled to a permanent injunction. Appeal allowed.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 140048-1001

[2007] EWCA Civ 864, 21 June 2007. The appellant local authority (S) appealed against failure of its attempts to stop a breach of planning control, and to recover costs from the respondent (C). C owned land of around two hectares. Within this, an area of half a hectare had permitted use as an area for storage of materials from a plant contractor for recycling. S had refused to allow permission for a part of the rest of the land to be used for the importation, sorting and handling of the waste. S obtained a notice to this effect, but failed at first to obtain an injunction enforcing it. Upon the granting a temporary injunction, S argued that the certificate could remove lawful use rights. "Held": The enforcement notice superseded C's lawful use certificate, which applied only to a given point in time. The inspector upholding the enforcement notice could have varied it to give precedence to the lawful use certificate, but saw no cause to do so. C's non-compliance had been absolute prior to the temporary injunction, and remained partial afterwards. S was therefore entitled to a permanent injunction. Appeal allowed.