Hilliard Brothers (Ewell) Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

Hilliard Brothers (Ewell) Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

The Inspector gave adequate reasons for his decision, properly considered the evidence and arguments on the necessity of the development and the fall-back position, and the enforcement notice's restoration requirement was reasonable and not excessive.

Parties
Claimant: Hilliard Brothers (Ewell) Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Epsom & Ewell Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing on Appeal and Permission
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Enforcement Notice, Adequacy of Reasons, Material Change of Use, Restoration Requirements
Planning Law Administrative Law Planning Permission Enforcement Notice Adequacy of Reasons Material Change of Use Restoration Requirements

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hilliard Brothers (Ewell) Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing on Appeal and Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector gave adequate reasons for dismissing the appeal regarding necessity of bunds and hardstanding for agricultural use
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to consider the claimant's fall-back position on existing use rights
  3. 3 Whether the enforcement notice's requirement to restore land to a condition suitable for agricultural use was excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector gave adequate reasons for his decision, properly considered the evidence and arguments on the necessity of the development and the fall-back position, and the enforcement notice's restoration requirement was reasonable and not excessive.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals under section 288 and section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dismissed