Miles Connors v (1) Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (2) Milton Keynes City Council [2025] EWHC 2701 (Admin)
Connors flood risk enforcement is a useful Planning Court decision on flood risk, biodiversity and the strict procedural requirements for bringing a section 289 enforcement appeal to the High Court.
The permission application failed first because the required witness evidence had not been filed and served in accordance with Practice Direction 54D. The court nevertheless considered the proposed grounds and concluded that they would not have succeeded in any event.
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
- [2025] EWHC 2701 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court, King's Bench Division, Administrative Court, Planning Court
- Judgment date
- 21st October 2025
- Judge
- HHJ Karen Walden-Smith, sitting as a Judge of the High Court
- Case number
- AC-2025-LON-000036
What Connors decided
The case concerned the former Brook End Nurseries at Brook End, Crawley, Newport Pagnell. Milton Keynes City Council served an enforcement notice in December 2021 alleging, among other matters, the unauthorised use of the site for mobile homes and caravans for human habitation, hard surfacing, fencing, a septic tank and lighting poles.
The notice also required replacement planting for more than 45 metres of hedgerow which had been removed.
An Inspector dismissed the enforcement appeal in December 2024. Mr Connors sought permission under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to appeal to the High Court.
HHJ Karen Walden-Smith held that there was no valid application before the court because the procedural requirements had not been met. She added that, even if the application had been brought correctly, none of the grounds was arguable and permission would have been refused.
Section 289 procedure is not a formality
Practice Direction 54D imposes specific requirements for a section 289 application, including a short time limit and the filing and service of evidence verifying the facts relied upon and service on the relevant parties.
The applicant had filed a short witness statement which expressly anticipated that the factual witness evidence would follow later. The substantive witness statements were not filed and served until 13 days after the deadline.
The judge rejected the suggestion that these were technical defects which could simply be ignored. The special procedure reflects the need for enforcement litigation to be resolved promptly, particularly because failure to comply with an effective enforcement notice can carry criminal consequences.
Flood risk was the decisive planning issue
The Inspector had treated serious flood risk as the determinative issue in the appeal. The site was affected by river and surface-water flooding and the unauthorised use involved highly vulnerable residential caravans and mobile homes.
The High Court held that the Inspector’s assessment could not properly be impugned. The Inspector had considered the relevant national policy and guidance, the available flood evidence and the vulnerability of the proposed residential use.
Surface-water risk could still be material
The applicant relied on the Court of Appeal’s Substation Action Save East Suffolk decision in support of an argument about the Sequential Test and surface-water flooding.
HHJ Karen Walden-Smith held that the authority did not assist on the facts. The absence of a universal requirement to search for an alternative site whenever there is surface-water risk did not prevent the Inspector taking surface-water flooding into account as a planning judgment.
The case is therefore a useful warning against reducing flood policy to a single question about mapped fluvial flood zones.
Highly vulnerable caravan use required particular care
Permanent residential caravans and mobile homes were treated by the relevant national policy as highly vulnerable development.
The Inspector was entitled to consider whether the sequential and exception-test framework had been properly addressed and whether the site could be shown to be safe. The appellant’s evidence did not undermine the Inspector’s conclusion that the flood-risk objection remained serious.
For current policy and practice, see Planning Geek’s Flood Risk Assessment guide, because national flood policy has changed since the decision considered in Connors.
Biodiversity loss was also a legitimate concern
The Inspector had removed the hedgerow-removal allegation from the enforcement notice because the removal itself was controlled under the Hedgerow Regulations rather than constituting the planning breach alleged.
That did not make the ecological effects irrelevant to the planning appeal.
Both sides’ evidence indicated a substantial biodiversity net loss, with competing calculations of 39.4% and 68.3%. No compensatory basis had been advanced. The judge held that the Inspector was entitled to treat the biodiversity loss as contrary to policy.
Enforcement appeals still require evidence on planning merits
Connors illustrates the double difficulty for an appellant who reaches the High Court with both procedural defects and weak underlying evidence.
A section 289 appeal is confined to points of law. It is not an opportunity to rerun the planning merits, introduce a better evidential case after the Inspector’s decision or ask the court to substitute its judgment on flood risk and biodiversity.
Why Connors matters in practice
The case is useful both for enforcement practitioners and for sites involving residential caravans in areas affected by multiple sources of flooding.
Procedural deadlines for a High Court enforcement appeal need to be treated as hard litigation requirements from the outset. On the planning side, appellants need robust site-specific evidence before the Inspector rather than expecting shortcomings to be repaired later in court.
See also Planning Geek’s guide to planning enforcement notices.
Read the full Connors judgment
The full Planning Court judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Connors Flood Risk Enforcement Case Law Page Updated: 10th September 2026