Lowe v First Secretary of State & Anor [2003] EWHC 537 (Admin) (06 February 2003)

Lowe v First Secretary of State & Anor [2003] EWHC 537 (Admin) (06 February 2003)

The inspector erred in law by taking into account and relying upon the reasons for the erection of the fence in determining whether the land was within the curtilage of the listed building. The reasons for development cannot affect the character of the land or the curtilage question, which must be determined as a matter of fact and degree based on physical layout, ownership, and use or function.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 537 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Denis Lowe; First Respondent: First Secretary of State; Second Respondent: Tendring District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Appeal From Inspector's Decision Upholding Enforcement Notice
Outcome
Appeal allowed; inspector's decision quashed
Legal Topics
Curtilage of Listed Buildings, Permitted Development, Enforcement Notice, Interpretation of Statutory Terms
Planning Law Administrative Law Curtilage of Listed Buildings Permitted Development Enforcement Notice Interpretation of Statutory Terms

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

Denis Lowe

Appellant

First Secretary of State

First Respondent

Tendring District Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Appeal From Inspector's Decision Upholding Enforcement Notice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the erection of a fence was within the curtilage of a listed building for the purposes of planning control
  2. 2 Whether the inspector erred in law by considering the reasons for erection of the fence as relevant to the curtilage question

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector erred in law by taking into account and relying upon the reasons for the erection of the fence in determining whether the land was within the curtilage of the listed building. The reasons for development cannot affect the character of the land or the curtilage question, which must be determined as a matter of fact and degree based on physical layout, ownership, and use or function.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; inspector's decision quashed

Orders

  • Inspector's decision upholding enforcement notice quashed
  • First respondent to pay appellant's costs, subject to a £300 deduction for skeleton argument duplication