Miaris v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 75
The point in plain English: Ground (f) is not a back-door route to argue the full planning merits when no ground (a) appeal has been made. Its scope is narrower and is tied to whether the enforcement requirements go further than necessary to remedy the breach or relevant injury to amenity.
What happened
An enforcement notice required a Bath restaurant to stop use as a drinking establishment and nightclub and to stop allowing DJs. The appellant relied only on ground (f), arguing that some requirements were excessive and that a more limited drinking use should be allowed.
No ground (a) appeal seeking planning permission was pursued.
What the Court of Appeal decided
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Inspector was right not to determine the general planning merits of an alternative mixed restaurant and drinking use under ground (f) alone.
Where a proposed alternative requires a planning judgment about whether it should be permitted, that is normally the territory of ground (a). Ground (f) cannot be stretched so far that it undermines the statutory limits on granting planning permission in an enforcement appeal.
Why Miaris matters
The case helps explain why selecting enforcement appeal grounds matters. An appellant who wants the Inspector to consider whether the development, or a controlled version of it, should receive planning permission cannot assume ground (f) will do the work of ground (a).
See Planning Geek’s guide to enforcement appeal grounds.
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.