O'Flynn v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2016] EWHC 2894 (Admin) (17 November 2016)

O'Flynn v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2016] EWHC 2894 (Admin) (17 November 2016)

The Inspector erred in law by failing to take account of relevant evidence and concessions, discounting gardening and recreational activities as incidental residential use, and not considering the curtilage exception under section 55(2)(d) TCPA 1990; these errors could have affected the outcome and warrant quashing...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2894 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Richard O'Flynn; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Warwick District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Section 288 TCPA 1990 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Decision quashed
Legal Topics
Certificate of Lawfulness, Curtilage, Incidental Residential Use, Statutory Interpretation, Judicial Review
Planning Law Administrative Law Certificate of Lawfulness Curtilage Incidental Residential Use Statutory Interpretation Judicial Review

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard O'Flynn

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Warwick District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under Section 288 TCPA 1990 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law in dismissing the appeal against refusal to grant a certificate of lawful existing use or development for the northern part of the site
  2. 2 Whether gardening and recreational activities constitute incidental residential use
  3. 3 Whether the curtilage exception under section 55(2)(d) TCPA 1990 was properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector erred in law by failing to take account of relevant evidence and concessions, discounting gardening and recreational activities as incidental residential use, and not considering the curtilage exception under section 55(2)(d) TCPA 1990; these errors could have affected the outcome and warrant quashing the decision.

Court Disposition

Decision quashed

Orders

  • The Inspector's decision dated 19 January 2016 is quashed.
  • Claimant's application for damages is refused.