High Court upholds inspector’s decision dismissing appeal against enforcement notice in Bridgend
The High Court has dismissed an appeal brought by a disabled homeowner challenging a planning enforcement decision requiring the removal of a newly built porch in Bridgend, Wales.
In the High Court of Justice, sitting in the Planning Court at Cardiff, His Honour Judge Keyser KC rejected the appeal of Kara Tobin against a decision made by a planning inspector appointed by the Welsh Ministers. The inspector had previously dismissed Ms Tobin’s appeal against an enforcement notice issued by Bridgend County Borough Council.
The enforcement notice, dated 10 March 2023, required the removal of a porch erected at the front of Ms Tobin’s bungalow in Litchard, Bridgend. The council alleged that the porch had been built without planning permission and was harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. While the inspector extended the compliance period from two to nine months, he refused planning permission and upheld the requirement for removal.
Ms Tobin, who represented herself, argued that the inspector had failed to comply with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. She has significant disabilities, including rare neurological conditions causing temporary paralysis, severe hearing loss, and registered significant sight impairment. She maintained that the porch was essential for safe wheelchair access to her home and that demolition would disproportionately affect her ability to live independently.
Permission to appeal was granted on a single legal ground only: whether the inspector had breached the public sector equality duty or failed to give adequate reasons when balancing planning harm against Ms Tobin’s protected characteristics. Other proposed grounds, including irrationality and procedural unfairness, were refused permission.
In his judgment, Judge Keyser KC held that the inspector had properly identified and addressed the relevant issues. He found that the inspector had expressly considered Ms Tobin’s disabilities, her personal circumstances, and her rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. The judge emphasised that the equality duty is one of process rather than outcome and does not require decision-makers to reach a particular result.
The court rejected the argument that the inspector’s reasoning was superficial or “tick-box” in nature. It held that the inspector had lawfully concluded that the porch caused material harm to the character and appearance of the area, and that this harm was not outweighed by the personal circumstances advanced.
Judge Keyser KC also ruled that it was not for the court to re-weigh the planning merits or substitute its own judgment for that of the inspector. The decision letter was found to be intelligible, adequate, and lawful when read fairly as a whole.
The appeal was therefore dismissed in full, leaving the enforcement notice in place.