Wood v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government [2015] EWHC 2368 (Admin) (06 August 2015)

Wood v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government [2015] EWHC 2368 (Admin) (06 August 2015)

The inspector lawfully and correctly interpreted the planning permissions granted in the 1960s as authorising only commercial mooring as part of a boatyard, not private mooring. The current use for private mooring constitutes a material change of use requiring planning permission, which was not granted. The inspector's approach was consistent with established legal principles and case law, and his findings of fact were within his remit.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2368 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Roger Wood; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: The Broads Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Statutory Appeal Under Sections 288 and 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment Following a Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Planning Permissions, Material Change of Use, Enforcement Notice Appeals, Section 75(3) Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Abandonment of Planning Use
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of Planning Permissions Material Change of Use Enforcement Notice Appeals Section 75(3) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Abandonment of Planning Use

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Wood

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

The Broads Authority

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Statutory Appeal Under Sections 288 and 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment Following a Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector erred in law in his conclusions on the ground (c) appeal regarding the lawful use of the basin
  2. 2 Whether the inspector was wrong to limit the mooring use of the basin to 25 vessels
  3. 3 Whether the inspector's decision was irrational

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector lawfully and correctly interpreted the planning permissions granted in the 1960s as authorising only commercial mooring as part of a boatyard, not private mooring. The current use for private mooring constitutes a material change of use requiring planning permission, which was not granted. The inspector's approach was consistent with established legal principles and case law, and his findings of fact were within his remit.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to extend time for section 289 application granted
  • Permission to amend grounds under section 288 granted