Stewart, R (on the application of) v First Secretary Of State For Environment & Anor

Stewart, R (on the application of) v First Secretary Of State For Environment & Anor

The inspector was entitled to find, on the evidence, that Area 2A was a separate planning unit with an established agricultural use in 1992, and that the claimant's activities did not amount to a material change of use. The inspector did not err in law or act unreasonably in his assessment of the evidence or application of legal principles. The claimant's disability does not alter the objective test for material change of use under planning law.

Parties
Claimant: Catherine Stewart; First Defendant: First Secretary of State for the Environment; Second Defendant: Cotswolds District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning Law) / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Certificate of Lawfulness, Material Change of Use, Planning Units, Judicial Review, Disability and Planning Law
Planning Law Administrative Law Certificate of Lawfulness Material Change of Use Planning Units Judicial Review Disability and Planning Law

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherine Stewart

Claimant

First Secretary of State for the Environment

First Defendant

Cotswolds District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning Law) / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning inspector erred in law in determining the planning unit and established use of Area 2A as agricultural in 1992
  2. 2 Whether the inspector erred in attaching weight to the evidence of Mr Gerald Stewart
  3. 3 Whether the inspector erred in concluding that use of a mobile home by a carer would not be incidental to residential use

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector was entitled to find, on the evidence, that Area 2A was a separate planning unit with an established agricultural use in 1992, and that the claimant's activities did not amount to a material change of use. The inspector did not err in law or act unreasonably in his assessment of the evidence or application of legal principles. The claimant's disability does not alter the objective test for material change of use under planning law.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the First Defendant, subject to Legal Aid restrictions