Hydro, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Hydro, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

The Inspector lawfully required removal of structures integral to the unauthorised mixed use, even if potentially immune from enforcement, as they were not installed for a different lawful use; absence of objections and lack of prior enforcement did not amount to very special circumstances; the Inspector properly considered and rejected the Appellant's case on need; no error of law or inadequacy of reasons was established.

Parties
Claimant: Kestrel Hydro; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Spelthorne Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal (planning) / High Court Judgment on Appeal Under Section 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Enforcement Notice, Material Change of Use, Operational Development, Immunity From Enforcement, Article 1 First Protocol ECHR, Proportionality, Duty to Give Reasons
Planning Law Administrative Law Human Rights Green Belt Policy Enforcement Notice Material Change of Use Operational Development Immunity From Enforcement +3 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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kestrel Hydro

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Spelthorne Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal (planning) / High Court Judgment on Appeal Under Section 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the enforcement notice lawfully required removal of structures potentially immune from enforcement but integral to unauthorised use
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to consider absence of objections and lack of enforcement action as very special circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to have proper regard to the Appellant's case on need

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector lawfully required removal of structures integral to the unauthorised mixed use, even if potentially immune from enforcement, as they were not installed for a different lawful use; absence of objections and lack of prior enforcement did not amount to very special circumstances; the Inspector properly considered and rejected the Appellant's case on need; no error of law or inadequacy of reasons was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay First Defendant's costs assessed at £8,662