The recent case R (Connors) v Bromley London Borough Council is a recent decision of the High Court concerning planning enforcement and the discretion of local planning authorities. It was handed down on 19 June 2026, which is after the coucil’s initial decision not to apply Section 70C in our case.
Thomas Connors had occupied land in the London Borough of Bromley as a traveller site without planning permission. The council had previously issued enforcement notices requiring the unauthorised use to cease. Rather than complying, the use continued for several years.
Mr Connors later submitted a retrospective planning application. Instead of determining the application on its planning merits, the council relied on section 70C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which allows a local planning authority in certain circumstances to decline to determine an application where there has been intentional unauthorised development or prolonged non-compliance with enforcement action.
The principal argument was that the council should nevertheless have considered the application because planning policy had changed in the meantime. In particular, Mr Connors argued that newer national planning policy—relating to concepts such as “grey belt” land—was a material consideration that should have been taken into account before refusing to determine the application.
The High Court dismissed the judicial review.
The court held that:
Section 70C gives councils a broad discretion whether to determine an
application in circumstances involving persistent breaches of planning control.
The council was entitled to place significant weight on the applicant's lengthy
failure to comply with enforcement notices.
A change in planning policy did not oblige the council to determine the
application on its merits before exercising its section 70C discretion.
The council's decision-making process was lawful and rational.The judgment reinforces that:
Local planning authorities can legitimately use section 70C as an enforcement
tool against long-running unauthorised development.
Applicants cannot necessarily avoid the consequences of prolonged non-compliance
simply because planning policy becomes more favourable after the fact.
Courts are likely to give considerable deference to councils exercising this
statutory discretion, provided they apply the legislation lawfully.The decision is therefore of interest to planning lawyers, local authorities, developers and those involved in traveller-site planning disputes, as it clarifies the relationship between changing planning policy and the discretion to refuse even to consider a retrospective planning application.