Wheeler v First Secretary of State

Wheeler v First Secretary of State

The inspector misapplied the legal test for curtilage by misstating the Sinclair-Lockhart's Trustees test and failed to ensure parties could comment on case law not previously cited, creating uncertainty as to whether the law was correctly applied. This justified quashing the workshop planning appeal decision and remitting it for reconsideration. There was no unfairness in the inspector's conduct of the site visit or reliance on his observations for the annex appeal.

Parties
Claimant: Ray Wheeler; First Respondent: First Secretary of State; Second Respondent: Wealden District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal (planning) / High Court Judgment on Applications Under Sections 288 and 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Section 288 application (workshop planning appeal) allowed; decision quashed and remitted. Leave to appeal against enforcement notice appeal granted and appeal allowed. Section 288 application (annex planning appeal) dismissed. Costs apportioned two-thirds to claimant, one-third to Secretary of State, subject to...
Legal Topics
Curtilage in Planning Law, Natural Justice in Written Representations, Inspector's Duty to Apply Correct Legal Test, Costs Apportionment in Judicial Review
Planning Law Administrative Law Curtilage in Planning Law Natural Justice in Written Representations Inspector's Duty to Apply Correct Legal Test Costs Apportionment in Judicial Review

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ray Wheeler

Claimant

First Secretary of State

First Respondent

Wealden District Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal (planning) / High Court Judgment on Applications Under Sections 288 and 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector misapplied the legal test for 'curtilage' in planning law
  2. 2 Whether failure to allow parties to comment on case law relied on by the inspector breached natural justice
  3. 3 Whether the inspector's unaccompanied site visit and reliance on observations breached natural justice

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector misapplied the legal test for curtilage by misstating the Sinclair-Lockhart's Trustees test and failed to ensure parties could comment on case law not previously cited, creating uncertainty as to whether the law was correctly applied. This justified quashing the workshop planning appeal decision and remitting it for reconsideration. There was no unfairness in the inspector's conduct of the site visit or reliance on his observations for the annex appeal.

Court Disposition

Section 288 application (workshop planning appeal) allowed; decision quashed and remitted. Leave to appeal against enforcement notice appeal granted and appeal allowed. Section 288 application (annex planning appeal) dismissed. Costs apportioned two-thirds to claimant, one-third to Secretary of State, subject to...

Orders

  • Workshop planning appeal decision quashed and remitted for rehearing and redetermination by the First Secretary of State.
  • Leave to appeal against enforcement notice appeal granted and appeal allowed; decision remitted for rehearing and redetermination.