Marshall, R (on the application of) v East Dorset District Council & Anor [2018] EWHC 226 (Admin) (13 February 2018)

Marshall, R (on the application of) v East Dorset District Council & Anor [2018] EWHC 226 (Admin) (13 February 2018)

The Defendant acted unlawfully by purporting to decide that the Interested Party's proposed building was permitted development under Class A of the GPDO, as the proposal was for livestock accommodation within 400m of protected buildings, which is expressly excluded by paragraph A.1(i). The Council had no power to make such a determination in the context of a prior approval application, and its decision notice was therefore quashed.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 226 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Glynn Howard Marshall; Defendant: East Dorset District Council; Interested Party: Brian Pitman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim for judicial review allowed on Ground 1; decision notice quashed; no declaration granted; partial costs awarded to Claimant.
Legal Topics
Permitted Development Rights, Prior Approval Procedure, Judicial Review, Town and Country Planning, Interpretation of GPDO, Enforcement Proceedings
Administrative Law Planning Law Permitted Development Rights Prior Approval Procedure Judicial Review Town and Country Planning Interpretation of GPDO Enforcement Proceedings

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glynn Howard Marshall

Claimant

East Dorset District Council

Defendant

Brian Pitman

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's decision notice was unlawful for granting permitted development rights for a building intended for livestock accommodation within 400m of protected buildings under the GPDO
  2. 2 Whether the application for prior approval was invalid due to inaccurate information
  3. 3 Whether the Council failed to consider the heritage impact on a nearby listed building

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant acted unlawfully by purporting to decide that the Interested Party's proposed building was permitted development under Class A of the GPDO, as the proposal was for livestock accommodation within 400m of protected buildings, which is expressly excluded by paragraph A.1(i). The Council had no power to make such a determination in the context of a prior approval application, and its decision notice was therefore quashed.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review allowed on Ground 1; decision notice quashed; no declaration granted; partial costs awarded to Claimant.

Orders

  • The Defendant's decision notice dated 13 February 2017 is quashed.
  • Claimant awarded 75% of costs.