Connors v Secretary of State: High Court rejects planning enforcement appeal over procedural failures

The High Court has dismissed an application for permission to appeal an enforcement notice, highlighting the critical importance of procedural compliance in planning appeals. In Miles Connors v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor [2025] EWHC 2701 (Admin), HHJ Karen Walden-Smith, sitting as a High Court judge, refused permission on both procedural and substantive grounds.

The case concerned an enforcement notice issued by Milton Keynes City Council in December 2021 regarding the former Brook End Nurseries site in Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire. The 0.9-hectare site had been subject to unauthorised development including the stationing of mobile homes and caravans for residential use, laying of tarmac surfaces, erection of fencing, removal of hedgerow, and installation of septic tanks and lighting poles.

Mr Connors, whose family occupied one of five static mobile homes on the site alongside eight touring caravans, appealed the enforcement notice to a planning inspector. Following a public inquiry that ran from October 2023 to September 2024, the inspector upheld the notice in December 2024, albeit with modifications removing the hedgerow allegation and extending the compliance period from three to nine months.

Fatal Procedural Defects

The applicant's attempt to challenge the inspector's decision under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 foundered on fundamental procedural failures. Practice Direction 54D requires specific documentation to be served and filed within strict timeframes. The applicant failed to serve a proper witness statement of fact before filing the application, instead providing only a brief statement acknowledging that the substantive evidence would follow 13 days after the deadline.

The court rejected counsel's characterisation of these failures as "nitpicking", with the judge emphasising that compliance with procedural rules is not a mere formality. The explanation that witness statements were delayed "due to the Christmas holiday period and offices being closed" was deemed woefully inadequate. As noted in R (Ibrar) v Dacorum BC [2023] JPL 668, the special rules governing section 289 appeals reflect the need for expeditious resolution, particularly where enforcement notices carry criminal sanctions for non-compliance.

Substantive Grounds: Flooding Concerns

Even had the procedural requirements been met, the substantive grounds would have failed. The central issue concerned flood risk assessment, with the inspector concluding the site posed serious flooding dangers. The applicant challenged this on four grounds, arguing the inspector wrongly rejected their flood risk evidence and misapplied sequential and exception tests under planning policy.

The inspector had legitimate reasons for questioning the Environment Agency's Flood Map for Planning, noting that surface water flooding maps using more recent digital terrain modelling showed high flood risk. The court found the inspector properly exercised planning judgement in rejecting the applicant's evidence, which had not been reviewed by the Environment Agency and contained identified deficiencies.

The applicant's reliance on R (Substation Action Save East Suffolk Ltd) v Secretary of State [2024] EWCA Civ 12 proved misplaced. That case concerned whether surface water flooding always triggers sequential testing requirements, whereas here the inspector had properly considered all flooding sources in reaching his conclusions.

Biodiversity Impact

The appeal also failed on biodiversity grounds. Both parties agreed there would be significant biodiversity net loss (between 39.4% and 68.3%), with no compensation proposed. The inspector properly addressed concerns about great crested newts and bats, criticising the absence of proper field surveys and baseline assessments.

This judgement reinforces that strict adherence to procedural requirements remains non-negotiable in planning appeals, whilst substantive challenges require more than disagreement with an inspector's properly reasoned conclusions.