Fox v First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 887 (Admin) (31 March 2003)

Fox v First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 887 (Admin) (31 March 2003)

The Inspector was entitled, on the evidence, to conclude that the land was in mixed use for agriculture and the keeping of horses, not solely for agricultural grazing, and that the enforcement notice was properly upheld. The Inspector applied the correct legal test, considered all relevant and material factors, and the requirements of the notice were not excessive or disproportionate.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 887 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: R H Fox; First Defendant: The First Secretary of State; Second Defendant: Kettering Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal Under S.289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Planning Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice Appeals, Change of Use, Mixed Agricultural/equestrian Use, Permitted Development, Planning Policy, Special Landscape Area, Costs
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Appeals Change of Use Mixed Agricultural/equestrian Use Permitted Development Planning Policy Special Landscape Area +1 more

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R H Fox

Claimant

The First Secretary of State

First Defendant

Kettering Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal Under S.289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Planning Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law in upholding an enforcement notice for mixed agricultural and equestrian use
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to apply the correct legal test for 'grazing' under planning law
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to consider material considerations in the planning balance

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was entitled, on the evidence, to conclude that the land was in mixed use for agriculture and the keeping of horses, not solely for agricultural grazing, and that the enforcement notice was properly upheld. The Inspector applied the correct legal test, considered all relevant and material factors, and the requirements of the notice were not excessive or disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's appeal dismissed
  • Claimant to pay First Defendant's costs, summarily assessed at £3,657.25