Delaney v Secretary of State: partial permission to appeal granted in caravan site enforcement dispute

The Planning Court has granted permission to appeal against part of a planning inspector's decision to dismiss appeals against enforcement notices requiring the removal of caravans from a site near Canterbury used by Gypsy and Traveller families, while refusing permission on several other grounds.

In Tom Delaney & Anor v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor [2026] EWHC 2076 (Admin), Robert Palmer KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, considered an application under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 arising from enforcement action taken by Canterbury City Council in respect of Moate Farm, a site divided into three areas each subject to separate planning permissions for the stationing of caravans.

The council had issued an earlier enforcement notice in 2021, which was quashed on appeal in 2024 because the site's three planning permissions had been granted at different times, creating difficulties for any limitation defence. The council then issued five fresh notices in December 2024, relying on the so called second bite provision in section 171B(4)(b) of the Act, which allows renewed enforcement action within four years of an earlier attempt. An inspector allowed two of the resulting appeals but dismissed three, including appeals brought by Tom Delaney and Peter Delaney in respect of Areas A and B of the farm.

The applicants advanced four principal grounds before the Planning Court. The first concerned the inspector's refusal to permit Peter Delaney to give oral evidence after he arrived unannounced partway through the hearing, having previously indicated an intention to submit a witness statement that never materialised. The judge found no unfairness, noting that the applicants had been given ample opportunity to submit evidence in advance and that the inspector had been entitled to protect the other parties' ability to test any evidence given.

The second and third grounds, both concerning Area B, fared better. The inspector had found that a 2015 planning permission for the area had never been implemented because a pre-commencement landscaping condition had not been discharged, meaning the permission had lapsed and could not found a breach of condition case. The judge held it arguable that the inspector had failed to grapple with evidence before him, including a council officer's report describing the application as partly retrospective and referring to caravans already present on the land, which sat uneasily with the conclusion that no development had commenced. Permission was also granted on the related argument that the newer enforcement notice, which targeted all caravans on Area B rather than only the additional caravans referred to in the 2021 notice, might fall outside the scope of the second bite provision altogether, and that the inspector had not properly engaged with evidence of the site's use predating the notice.

The fourth ground concerned an unaccompanied site visit carried out by the inspector, during which he formed an impression, based on overheard conversation, that some occupiers might not be members of the Gypsy and Traveller community. The judge found no error of law, noting that the inspector had raised the point at the hearing and had not treated it as determinative, instead concluding only that there was insufficient evidence about who occupied the wider site.

Permission to appeal was accordingly granted only in respect of Grounds 2 and 3, meaning the substantive appeal will proceed solely in relation to Appeal C and Area B. The application concerning Area A was refused in full, and the judge invited the parties to agree directions for the hearing of the surviving grounds.