Burford v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Burford v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector was entitled to conclude that the land on which the building stood was not within the curtilage of the dwelling house due to physical separation and lack of enclosure, and that the height of the eaves should be measured from the excavated ground level adjacent to the building, not the higher natural ground, thus the building did not benefit from permitted development rights.

Parties
Appellant: Adrian Burford; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: Test Valley Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S.289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Curtilage Determination, Permitted Development Rights, Enforcement Notice Appeals, Measurement of Building Height, Certificate of Lawfulness
Planning Law Administrative Law Curtilage Determination Permitted Development Rights Enforcement Notice Appeals Measurement of Building Height Certificate of Lawfulness

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adrian Burford

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

Test Valley Borough Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under S.289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the building was within the curtilage of the dwelling house for the purposes of permitted development rights under Class E of Schedule 2 of the GPDO
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector erred in measuring the height of the eaves from the excavated ground level rather than the adjacent higher ground

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was entitled to conclude that the land on which the building stood was not within the curtilage of the dwelling house due to physical separation and lack of enclosure, and that the height of the eaves should be measured from the excavated ground level adjacent to the building, not the higher natural ground, thus the building did not benefit from permitted development rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed