Bonsall v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor; Jackson v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWCA Civ 1246
The point in plain English: Planning Enforcement Orders did not wipe away the earlier Welwyn Hatfield public-policy rule. In serious cases of deliberate deception, an authority can still rely on the Welwyn principle even without first obtaining a PEO.
What happened
The Court of Appeal heard two enforcement cases together. In each, the Inspector had found positive deception intended to conceal residential use until the ordinary enforcement period had expired. The appellants argued that Parliament’s introduction of sections 171BA to 171BC and the Planning Enforcement Order procedure had replaced the judicial rule established in Welwyn Hatfield.
What the Court of Appeal decided
The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals. Parliament had introduced the PEO procedure as an additional and alternative enforcement route, not as an exclusive replacement for Welwyn Hatfield. The statutory wording did not amend section 171B so as to remove the effect of the Supreme Court’s interpretation.
The two routes overlap but are not identical. A PEO can deal with deliberate concealment more broadly, while the Welwyn principle remains available in sufficiently serious deception cases.
Why Bonsall and Jackson matter
The judgment remains important when deliberate concealment is relied upon in an enforcement or Certificate of Lawfulness case. However, the underlying statutory time-limit regime changed in England from 25th April 2024, so the historic four-year references in the judgment must not be read as the current general rule.
See Planning Geek’s guide to Planning Enforcement Orders and concealment.
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.