Chas Storer Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

Chas Storer Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

The Inspector found that the material change of use was the addition of co-mingled waste, not the increase in vehicle movements or hours of operation. Therefore, the Inspector erred in law by imposing requirements restricting vehicle movements and hours of operation, as these did not form part of the material change of use and remained lawful. The appeal is allowed and the matter remitted for re-hearing.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Chas Storer Limited; First Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant/respondent: Hertfordshire County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal Under Section 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted for re-hearing and determination.
Legal Topics
Material Change of Use, Enforcement Notice Requirements, Lawfulness of Planning Restrictions, Interpretation of Inspector's Decision
Planning Law Administrative Law Material Change of Use Enforcement Notice Requirements Lawfulness of Planning Restrictions Interpretation of Inspector's Decision

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chas Storer Limited

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant/respondent

Hertfordshire County Council

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal Under Section 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What constituted the material change of use found by the Inspector?
  2. 2 Was the Inspector entitled to impose restrictions on vehicle movements and hours of operation not forming part of the material change of use?

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector found that the material change of use was the addition of co-mingled waste, not the increase in vehicle movements or hours of operation. Therefore, the Inspector erred in law by imposing requirements restricting vehicle movements and hours of operation, as these did not form part of the material change of use and remained lawful. The appeal is allowed and the matter remitted for re-hearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remitted for re-hearing and determination.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The matter is remitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for re-hearing and determination in accordance with the judgment.