Ramsay & Anor v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor [2001] EWHC Admin 277 (11th April, 2001)

Ramsay & Anor v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor [2001] EWHC Admin 277 (11th April, 2001)

The inspector was entitled to consider the permanent physical features of the land in assessing whether the proposed use was temporary or amounted to a permanent mixed use. The existence of such features, created specifically for vehicular sports, meant that the proposed use was not a temporary use within the meaning of the General Permitted Development Order 1995. The appeal therefore fails.

Citation
[2001] EWHC Admin 277
Parties
Claimant: Messers R W and J P Ramsay; First Defendant: Secretary for the State for the Environment Transport and The Regions; Second Defendant: Suffolk Coastal District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Appeal From Planning Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Lawful Development Certificate, Material Change of Use, General Permitted Development Order, Enforcement Notices, Temporary Vs Permanent Use
Planning Law Administrative Law Lawful Development Certificate Material Change of Use General Permitted Development Order Enforcement Notices Temporary Vs Permanent 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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Messers R W and J P Ramsay

Claimant

Secretary for the State for the Environment Transport and The Regions

First Defendant

Suffolk Coastal District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Appeal From Planning Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed use of land for vehicular sports and leisure activities for up to 28 days per year is lawful under the General Permitted Development Order 1995 given the permanent physical alterations to the land
  2. 2 Whether the inspector erred in law by considering the physical features of the land in determining if the use was temporary or permanent

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector was entitled to consider the permanent physical features of the land in assessing whether the proposed use was temporary or amounted to a permanent mixed use. The existence of such features, created specifically for vehicular sports, meant that the proposed use was not a temporary use within the meaning of the General Permitted Development Order 1995. The appeal therefore fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The inspector's decision to uphold the refusal of a lawful development certificate is affirmed.