R (on the application of Thomas Connors) v Bromley London Borough Council [2026] EWHC 1517 (Admin)
Connors v Bromley is an important 2026 Planning Court judgment on section 70C and changed national planning policy. The claimant argued that the introduction of grey belt and revised traveller policy meant Bromley had to reconsider the planning merits of a site already subject to enforcement notices.
Mr Justice Fordham rejected that argument on the facts. Section 70C contains no automatic fresh claim test, and the continuing failure to comply with the enforcement notices was central to the council’s lawful decision not to determine the new 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 1517 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, Planning Court
- Judgment date
- 19th June 2026
- Judge
- Mr Justice Fordham
- Case number
- AC-2025-LON-004621
What happened at the Knockholt site
Thomas Connors bought land near Knockholt railway station in February 2025. In August 2025 he applied retrospectively for two Gypsy and Traveller pitches with caravans, amenity blocks and hardstanding.
The land was already subject to two enforcement notices issued in 2019. One related to operational development including hardstanding, gates, fencing and a mobile home. The other related to a material change of use involving residential and commercial activities.
The notices remained extant and enforceable. They had never been complied with, and there had already been three successful criminal prosecutions.
The new application relied on the December 2024 policy changes
The planning case relied heavily on changes introduced by the December 2024 NPPF and revised Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.
The claimant argued that:
- the land could now qualify as grey belt
- a traveller site could therefore avoid being inappropriate development if the current policy tests were met
- Bromley could not demonstrate an up-to-date five-year supply of traveller sites
- the wider definition of Gypsies and Travellers and the tilted balance improved the planning case
A nearby appeal at Jodeen Animal Sanctuary was also relied upon as an example of the new policy being applied favourably to a traveller proposal.
Bromley used section 70C instead of deciding the merits
Bromley declined to determine the application under section 70C.
The officer report relied on the extant enforcement notices, the previous planning and appeal history, the similarity with earlier applications and the council’s wish to continue enforcing the outstanding notices.
The claimant did not dispute that section 70C was technically engaged. The challenge was about whether the changed policy meant Bromley had used that power unlawfully.
Moran had already defined the purpose of section 70C
The judgment applies the Court of Appeal’s very recent decision in Moran v Medway.
Moran confirms that section 70C exists to prevent an applicant insisting on repeated consideration of planning merits where an enforcement notice already deals with the same breach in whole or in part.
Once the statutory overlap exists, the authority has a broad discretion. The legislation does not prescribe a list of matters which must always be considered before that discretion is exercised.
There is no fresh-claim test in section 70C
The claimant’s strongest argument was that the new traveller and grey belt policy created a fundamentally different planning case. The old merits had never been considered under the new national framework.
Fordham J accepted that the argument was genuinely arguable, but rejected it.
Section 70C does not contain a test under which a new planning argument with a realistic prospect of success must automatically be determined. An authority may choose to look at the changed merits, but it is not invariably obliged to do so.
The absence of a reset was central
The judgment repeatedly emphasises that the enforcement notices had never been complied with.
The hardstanding and other development had not been removed, the land had not been restored and caravans had been brought onto the site after the claimant acquired it.
Fordham J described this as the absence of a reset or a wiping of the slate clean.
That continuing enforcement position gave Bromley a legitimate reason to preserve clarity, prevent further delay and pursue the notices rather than reopen the planning merits.
The court said a reset could change the position
This qualification is important.
The judge expressly said the position could be very different if there had been a reset. Compliance with the enforcement notices would remove a central part of Bromley’s reasoning.
Connors should therefore not be cited as saying that changed policy can never matter or that land subject to an old enforcement notice is permanently sterilised.
The section 70C question remains fact-sensitive and case-specific.
The policy changes were not obviously material on these facts
The claimant argued that the December 2024 national policy changes were so fundamental that Bromley was legally required to address them when deciding whether to exercise section 70C.
The court again accepted that this was an arguable point, particularly because of the possible long-term effect of refusing ever to reconsider land under a changed policy framework.
But on these facts, Bromley was entitled to focus instead on the planning history, the uncomplied-with notices and the public interest in effective enforcement.
The new policy was therefore not an obviously material consideration which the council was legally duty-bound to address.
No extra reasons were required for disregarding the policy point
The claimant also argued that the officer report should at least have explained why the changed national policy was being disregarded.
The court rejected that ground too.
Where a matter was not, on the facts, a consideration which the authority was legally obliged to take into account, the reasons duty did not require a further layer of explanation setting out why the authority had chosen not to treat it as relevant.
The council had explained the enforcement history, its wish to pursue the notices and why section 70C was being exercised. That was sufficient.
Connors and Baker should be read together
The later decision in Baker v Reigate and Banstead applies the same Moran and Connors principles to another Gypsy and Traveller site.
Baker adds a detailed Article 8 proportionality analysis and confirms that even serious family and welfare circumstances did not make the section 70C decision disproportionate on the facts of that case.
Together the three cases provide the clearest current line of authority on section 70C: Moran establishes the Court of Appeal framework, Connors deals with changed national policy and no reset, and Baker adds the human-rights dimension.
Read the full Connors 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 guide to grey belt and Green Belt.
Connors Case Law Page Updated: 9th September 2026