Grendon v The First Secretary of State & Anor [2006] EWHC 1711 (Admin) (14 July 2006)

Grendon v The First Secretary of State & Anor [2006] EWHC 1711 (Admin) (14 July 2006)

The Inspector was entitled to find that the building did not constitute a dwellinghouse for planning purposes because it lacked the physical attributes and facilities required for day-to-day private domestic existence, and mere occupation by the claimant as a home was insufficient to alter its status.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1711 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Stephen Grendon; 1st Respondent: The First Secretary of State; 2nd Respondent: Cotswold District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Certificate of Lawful Use or Development, Definition of Dwellinghouse, Enforcement Action, Change of Use, Statutory Interpretation
Planning Law Administrative Law Certificate of Lawful Use or Development Definition of Dwellinghouse Enforcement Action Change of Use Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Grendon

Claimant

The First Secretary of State

1st Respondent

Cotswold District Council

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the building constituted a 'dwellinghouse' under Section 171B(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector misdirected himself in law regarding the test for a dwellinghouse
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to apply principles from Uratemp Ventures Ltd. v Collins

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was entitled to find that the building did not constitute a dwellinghouse for planning purposes because it lacked the physical attributes and facilities required for day-to-day private domestic existence, and mere occupation by the claimant as a home was insufficient to alter its status.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim challenging the Inspector's decision is dismissed.