Gore, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

Gore, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

The inspector was entitled to conclude, as a matter of fact and degree, that the building was not a dwellinghouse for the purposes of planning law and the GPDO, and that there was no defined curtilage. The mixed use did not begin until 1999, so the enforcement notice was not out of time. No error of law was disclosed.

Parties
Claimant: Graham Gore; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Dartmoor National Park Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal (section 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment on Appeal From Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notices, Permitted Development, Definition of Dwellinghouse, Curtilage, Immunity From Enforcement, Mixed Use, Costs
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notices Permitted Development Definition of Dwellinghouse Curtilage Immunity From Enforcement Mixed Use +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graham Gore

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Dartmoor National Park Authority

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal (section 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment on Appeal From Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the building was a 'dwellinghouse' for the purposes of planning law and the GPDO
  2. 2 Whether the decking was within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse
  3. 3 Whether the enforcement notice was out of time (10-year rule for immunity)

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector was entitled to conclude, as a matter of fact and degree, that the building was not a dwellinghouse for the purposes of planning law and the GPDO, and that there was no defined curtilage. The mixed use did not begin until 1999, so the enforcement notice was not out of time. No error of law was disclosed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant to pay the first respondent's costs, to be subject to detailed assessment unless otherwise agreed