A4 Metal Recycling v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor [2014] EWHC 2524 (Admin) (31 July 2014)

A4 Metal Recycling v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor [2014] EWHC 2524 (Admin) (31 July 2014)

The Inspector was entitled to determine the fallback position based on the 2005 CLUED, was not required to treat unpermitted uses as lawful absent a CLUED, and was correct in finding a material change of use requiring planning permission. The Inspector properly applied relevant planning policies, including the provisos regarding access, and gave adequate reasons for his decision. No error of law, irrationality, or procedural unfairness was established.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2524 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: A4 Metal Recycling; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: West Berkshire District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under S 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Material Change of Use, Planning Permission, Fallback Position, Lawful Use Certificate (clued), Noise Impact, Access and Bridleway Use, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (aonb), Waste Management Policy, Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Material Change of Use Planning Permission Fallback Position Lawful Use Certificate (clued) Noise Impact +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 7 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A4 Metal Recycling

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

West Berkshire District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under S 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in finding a material change of use requiring planning permission
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector properly determined the fallback position regarding lawful uses
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector correctly applied planning policies and presumptions in favour of development

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was entitled to determine the fallback position based on the 2005 CLUED, was not required to treat unpermitted uses as lawful absent a CLUED, and was correct in finding a material change of use requiring planning permission. The Inspector properly applied relevant planning policies, including the provisos regarding access, and gave adequate reasons for his decision. No error of law, irrationality, or procedural unfairness was established.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim under s 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dismissed