Harper, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2010] EWHC 1338 (Admin) (18 May 2010)

Harper, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2010] EWHC 1338 (Admin) (18 May 2010)

The inspector's decision was lawful as the building was not designed for agricultural purposes, was harmful to the countryside, and the inspector correctly applied planning law and policy. There was no error in principle or fact justifying judicial intervention.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1338 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Stuart Harper; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Permitted Development, Enforcement Notice, Agricultural Buildings
Administrative Law Planning Law Planning Permission Permitted Development Enforcement Notice Agricultural Buildings

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

Stuart Harper

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

East Riding of Yorkshire Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector's decision to dismiss the appeal against refusal of planning permission was lawful
  2. 2 Whether the building was designed for agricultural purposes within the meaning of the General Permitted Development Order 1995
  3. 3 Whether the inspector erred in considering the character and appearance of the building and its agricultural use

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector's decision was lawful as the building was not designed for agricultural purposes, was harmful to the countryside, and the inspector correctly applied planning law and policy. There was no error in principle or fact justifying judicial intervention.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed