The enforcement of planning control plays a vital part in the overall planning regime. Many of our clients rely on the vast experience of our planning law team when issues regarding breaches of planning control arise.
Our lawyers have extensive planning law expertise, and provide advice and representation to local planning authorities on a wide range of enforcement issues including:
- Local enforcement plans and enforcement policies (including enforcement protocols)
- Enforcement notices
- Stop notices
- Breach of condition notices
- Untidy land (section 215) notices
- Tree preservation orders
- Advertisement control
- Prosecutions and Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings
- Direct action
- Injunctions
Our wealth of experience means we can provide assistance from the beginning to the end of the enforcement process, advising on enforcement policies, drafting notices, inquiries, and where appropriate, issuing or defending civil and or criminal proceedings.
What others say
Latest Sharpe Focus Newsletter
Planning appeals and disputes
-
The Environment Bill – Planning Implications: The Biodiversity Net Gain Approach
On 26th February, the Environment Bill (‘the Bill’) had its second reading in the House of Commons. The Bill, which sets out the future governance framework for environmental law once Read more
-
Sharpe Pritchard presents planning and housing seminar
The planning law team at Sharpe Pritchard will be presenting a training seminar, ‘Planning Tips and Update (2)’, on behalf of EM LawShare. Partners Denise Stephenson and Brian Hurwitz will be joined Read more
Sharpe Pritchard latest news and blog
Planning appeals and disputes
-
Changes to Statements of Truth
On 6 April 2020 amendments to Civil Procedure Rules (the ‘CPR’), Practice Directions (‘PD’) 22 and 32 come into effect, pursuant to the 113th update to the CPR. The amendments Read more
-
The Supreme Court overturns the Court of Appeal decision in WM Morrison Supermarkets v Various Claimants
Introduction On 1 April 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that Morrisons is not vicariously liable for its employee’s criminal act of leaking payroll data of nearly 100,000 colleagues. The Court Read more
