Dacorum Borough Council v The First Secretary of State

Dacorum Borough Council v The First Secretary of State

The inspector was entitled to conclude that the proposed pergola and gates did not add to the existing floorspace of the dwelling for the purposes of Policy 23, as the structure was essentially aesthetic and did not alter the character of the drive. There was no error of law or irrationality in the inspector's decision.

Parties
Claimant: Dacorum Borough Council; First Defendant: The First Secretary of State; Second Defendants: Mr and Mrs M Cannon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Local Planning Policy, Definition of Floorspace, Statutory Appeal Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of Local Planning Policy Definition of Floorspace Statutory Appeal Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dacorum Borough Council

Claimant

The First Secretary of State

First Defendant

Mr and Mrs M Cannon

Second Defendants

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning inspector erred in law in concluding that the proposed pergola and gates did not constitute an increase in floorspace under Policy 23 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to take into account a relevant consideration or acted on a false factual premise regarding the use and configuration of the gates

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector was entitled to conclude that the proposed pergola and gates did not add to the existing floorspace of the dwelling for the purposes of Policy 23, as the structure was essentially aesthetic and did not alter the character of the drive. There was no error of law or irrationality in the inspector's decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs of £2,605 awarded to the First Secretary of State