Sellars, R (on the application of) v Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council

Sellars, R (on the application of) v Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council

The Defendant failed in law to identify and consider the appropriate planning unit when determining the application for a certificate of lawful existing use under section 191, thereby failing to take into account a material consideration essential to the decision-making process. This error was material and affected the outcome. The decision must be quashed and remitted for lawful determination.

Parties
Claimant: Alison Sellars; Defendant: Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; decision quashed and remitted for redetermination.
Legal Topics
Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use, Planning Unit Identification, Material Change of Use, Intensification of Use, Burden of Proof in Planning Applications
Planning Law Administrative Law Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use Planning Unit Identification Material Change of Use Intensification of Use Burden of Proof in Planning Applications

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alison Sellars

Claimant

Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant erred in law by failing to identify and consider the appropriate planning unit in determining the application for a certificate of lawful existing use under section 191 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant erred in its assessment of material change of use by way of intensification
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant erred in granting the certificate given the period of foot and mouth restrictions

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant failed in law to identify and consider the appropriate planning unit when determining the application for a certificate of lawful existing use under section 191, thereby failing to take into account a material consideration essential to the decision-making process. This error was material and affected the outcome. The decision must be quashed and remitted for lawful determination.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; decision quashed and remitted for redetermination.

Orders

  • The Defendant's decision to grant the certificate of lawful existing use is quashed.
  • The application is remitted to the Defendant for lawful determination in accordance with the judgment.