R (on the application of Teresa Baker) v Reigate and Banstead Borough Council [2026] EWHC 2124 (Admin)
Baker is an important 2026 Planning Court case on section 70C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It considers whether a council had to determine a second retrospective application after national Green Belt and traveller policy had changed, even though earlier enforcement notices remained in force and had not been complied with.
The court upheld Reigate and Banstead’s decision to decline to determine the application.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2026] EWHC 2124 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, Planning Court
- Judgment date
- 11th August 2026
- Judge
- Timothy Corner KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
- Case number
- AC-2025-LON-002441
What happened at Pickett’s Yard
Teresa Baker and other members of her extended family lived in caravans at Pickett’s Yard in Salfords, Surrey. The site was in the Green Belt.
Operational works and a change of use to a Gypsy and Traveller caravan site had taken place without planning permission in 2022. The council refused a retrospective application and served enforcement notices.
The planning and enforcement appeals were dismissed in May 2023. The Inspector found significant Green Belt harm, but also gave significant weight to the families’ personal circumstances, the interests of children, Article 8 rights and the lack of an alternative site.
The enforcement notices nevertheless remained in force and the required compliance steps were not taken.
A second application relied on changed national policy
In April 2025 the claimant made a second retrospective application. This time she relied on material changes in national policy, including:
- the introduction of the grey belt concept
- changes to the national definition of Gypsies and Travellers
- the revised Planning Policy for Traveller Sites
- the possible application of the NPPF tilted balance
The argument was that this was not simply another attempt to run the same planning case. The policy framework had changed and the planning merits could now be different.
Section 70C does not create a fresh-claim test
The court applied the recent Court of Appeal decision in Moran v Medway and the High Court decision in Connors v Bromley.
Section 70C exists so that an occupier cannot insist on repeated determinations of the planning merits of a breach already covered by an enforcement notice. Once the statutory conditions are met, the council has a broad discretion whether it is prepared to reconsider the merits.
There is no immigration-style fresh claim test under which changed evidence or policy automatically gives an applicant a right to a second determination.
Changed policy was not automatically an obviously material consideration
The claimant argued that the new grey belt and traveller policies were so obviously material that the council was legally obliged to engage with them before using section 70C.
The court disagreed. On the facts of the case, the absence of any reset was important. The enforcement notices remained in force and had not been complied with.
Following Moran and Connors, the possibility that the planning merits had improved did not itself make the changed policy a mandatory consideration which forced the council back into a planning merits exercise.
The council had considered the new policy anyway
The court also held that, even if the changed policy had to be considered, Reigate and Banstead had done enough.
The decision expressly referred to the new national policy, the grey belt argument, the widened traveller definition, alleged unmet need and the families’ personal circumstances.
Section 70C did not require the council to carry out a full second planning assessment in order to decide whether to decline to determine the application.
The earlier Inspector’s findings did not prove the site was grey belt
The claimant argued that the 2023 appeal decision effectively demonstrated that Pickett’s Yard should now be treated as grey belt because the Inspector had concentrated on Green Belt purpose (c), safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
The court rejected that inference. Grey belt had not existed as a policy concept when the Inspector decided the appeal, and the Inspector had not assessed all of the matters now relevant to the definition or the current NPPF exceptions.
A historic Inspector’s decision should therefore not be reverse-engineered into a finding on a later policy which the Inspector was never asked to apply.
Article 8 proportionality required a separate court assessment
The claimant also relied on the Article 8 rights of the Gypsy and Traveller families.
The court took this seriously. Timothy Corner KC considered the families’ personal circumstances, the lack of alternative accommodation, children’s need for stability and education, significant medical needs and the importance of maintaining Gypsy and Traveller culture.
The proportionality question was for the court to assess for itself rather than merely asking whether the council’s view was irrational.
The section 70C decision was still proportionate
Despite those serious personal circumstances, the court held that declining to determine the second application was proportionate.
The families had already received a full planning and enforcement appeal on the merits. The Inspector had extended the compliance periods substantially because of their circumstances. Those periods had expired about a year before the council made the section 70C decision.
The court considered that requiring the council to determine the second application would undermine the statutory purpose of section 70C. The decision struck a fair balance between the families’ rights and the public interest in effective planning enforcement.
Baker does not mean changed policy can never justify reconsideration
This is an important limit on the case.
Section 70C is discretionary. A council may decide to determine a new application where policy, the development plan or other circumstances have materially changed. Baker does not remove that choice.
What it rejects is a general rule that changed policy gives the applicant a legal entitlement to a fresh merits decision while the earlier enforcement position remains unresolved.
The position may also be materially different after a genuine reset, for example where the enforcement notice has been complied with and a later prospective application is made.
Read the full Baker judgment
The approved Planning Court judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Related Planning Geek guidance
See our guide to section 70C and when a council can decline an application and our explanation of grey belt and Green Belt.
Baker Case Law Page Updated: 9th September 2026