Smith v The First Scretary of State & Anor

Smith v The First Scretary of State & Anor

The inspector lawfully applied the essential need test under PPS7 Annex A, properly considered all relevant factors, and reached planning judgments without error of law. The interference with the appellant's Article 8 rights was proportionate and justified by the public interest in protecting the National Park.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Louisa Smith; 1st Defendant/respondent: First Secretary of State; 2nd Defendant/respondent: North Yorkshire National Park Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review/statutory Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Under Sections 288 and 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application under section 288 dismissed; permission to appeal under section 289 granted but appeal dismissed; costs awarded to first defendant.
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice Appeal, Planning Permission, Functional Test for Rural Dwellings, Article 8 ECHR, Costs Assessment
Planning Law Administrative Law Human Rights Enforcement Notice Appeal Planning Permission Functional Test for Rural Dwellings Article 8 ECHR Costs Assessment

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louisa Smith

Appellant/claimant

First Secretary of State

1st Defendant/respondent

North Yorkshire National Park Authority

2nd Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review/statutory Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Under Sections 288 and 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector erred in law in dismissing the appeal against the enforcement notice and refusal of planning permission for residential use and associated development in a National Park
  2. 2 Whether the inspector correctly applied the functional test for rural dwellings under PPS7 Annex A
  3. 3 Whether the inspector properly considered the appellant's human rights under Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector lawfully applied the essential need test under PPS7 Annex A, properly considered all relevant factors, and reached planning judgments without error of law. The interference with the appellant's Article 8 rights was proportionate and justified by the public interest in protecting the National Park.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application under section 288 dismissed; permission to appeal under section 289 granted but appeal dismissed; costs awarded to first defendant.

Orders

  • Appellant to pay first defendant's costs in the sum of £7,228, subject to section 11 of the Access to Justice Act 1999.
  • Detailed assessment of costs incurred on the appellant's public funding certificates.