Newlyn Dean & Sons LTD v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government [2014] EWCA Civ 193 (27 February 2014)

Newlyn Dean & Sons LTD v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government [2014] EWCA Civ 193 (27 February 2014)

The Inspector correctly interpreted PPG2 as requiring all development, including outdoor recreation and livery, to preserve the openness of the Green Belt. Her factual findings that the uses and associated structures materially reduced openness were rational and within her remit. There was no error of law or procedural unfairness in her approach to planning conditions or the assessment of visual impact.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 193
Parties
Appellant (claimant): Newlyn Dean & Sons Limited; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: East Dorset District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal (s.289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Town and Country Planning, Enforcement Notices, Material Change of Use, Outdoor Recreation, Livery Use, Visual Amenity, Habitats and Species Regulations, Procedural Fairness
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Green Belt Policy Town and Country Planning Enforcement Notices Material Change of Use Outdoor Recreation +4 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Newlyn Dean & Sons Limited

Appellant (claimant)

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

East Dorset District Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (s.289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector misinterpreted Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2) in finding paintballing and livery uses inappropriate in the Green Belt
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector's conclusions on visual impact and rural character were irrational or unfair
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector's approach to planning conditions for livery use and the Special Area of Conservation was procedurally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector correctly interpreted PPG2 as requiring all development, including outdoor recreation and livery, to preserve the openness of the Green Belt. Her factual findings that the uses and associated structures materially reduced openness were rational and within her remit. There was no error of law or procedural unfairness in her approach to planning conditions or the assessment of visual impact.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed