Jackson v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 20 (Admin)
The point in plain English: The High Court held that the Planning Enforcement Order regime did not replace the earlier Welwyn Hatfield rule on deliberate concealment. A sufficiently serious positive deception could still defeat reliance on the ordinary enforcement time limit.
What happened
Mr Jackson converted part of an agricultural barn to residential accommodation and later relied on the then four-year immunity period. The Inspector found that statements and conduct had positively misled the council about the residential use.
The main legal issue was whether the Localism Act 2011 provisions creating Planning Enforcement Orders had replaced the public-policy principle established by the Supreme Court in Welwyn Hatfield.
What the High Court decided
Holgate J dismissed the appeal. The new PEO provisions were supplementary rather than exhaustive, and did not silently rewrite section 171B as interpreted in Welwyn Hatfield. The Inspector had also been entitled to find positive deception on the facts.
What happened on appeal
The same point went to the Court of Appeal together with the Bonsall case. The Court of Appeal confirmed the High Court’s conclusion in Bonsall and Jackson [2015] EWCA Civ 1246.
The historic time-limit references in this judgment pre-date the changes applying in England from 25th April 2024, so current enforcement periods should be checked separately.
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.