Dyason v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1194 (19 July 2001)

Dyason v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1194 (19 July 2001)

The inspector's conclusions on functional need, financial soundness, and the impact on the Green Belt were matters of fact and judgment, supported by reasons and without legal error. The refusal to allow amendment to include Human Rights Act arguments was correct as the guidance was not subordinate legislation, the acts predated the Act, and no arguable conflict with the Convention was shown.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1194
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Linden Prescott Dyason; Defendant/respondent: The Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions; Defendant/respondent: Chiltern District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Administrative Court Decision
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Green Belt Policy, Temporary Dwellings for Agricultural Workers, Human Rights Act 1998, Judicial Review, Enforcement Notices
Planning Law Administrative Law Human Rights Planning Permission Green Belt Policy Temporary Dwellings for Agricultural Workers Human Rights Act 1998 Judicial Review +1 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linden Prescott Dyason

Claimant/applicant

The Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions

Defendant/respondent

Chiltern District Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Administrative Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector erred in law in refusing planning permission for a barn and temporary dwelling
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to consider relevant evidence or acted unfairly
  3. 3 Whether refusal to amend grounds of appeal to include Human Rights Act arguments was correct

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector's conclusions on functional need, financial soundness, and the impact on the Green Belt were matters of fact and judgment, supported by reasons and without legal error. The refusal to allow amendment to include Human Rights Act arguments was correct as the guidance was not subordinate legislation, the acts predated the Act, and no arguable conflict with the Convention was shown.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • No amendment to grounds of appeal allowed