Nicholson, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor [2005] EWHC 378 (Admin) (17 March 2005)

Nicholson, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor [2005] EWHC 378 (Admin) (17 March 2005)

The inspector was entitled in law to conclude that the land was not in agricultural use for the purposes of a trade or business at the time of development, and the generator building was not designed for agricultural purposes. The wall exceeded the permitted height adjacent to a highway used by vehicular traffic, and the inspector's approach to measuring height from the lane side was correct. The appeal against both enforcement notices fails.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 378 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: (R) Nicholson; Defendant: First Secretary of State; Defendant: South Gloucestershire District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal Under S.289 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Appeal Against Inspector's Upholding of Two Enforcement Notices
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Permitted Development Rights, Agricultural Use, Green Belt Policy, Enforcement Notices, Listed Buildings, Interpretation of GPDO, Wall Height Restrictions
Planning Law Administrative Law Permitted Development Rights Agricultural Use Green Belt Policy Enforcement Notices Listed Buildings Interpretation of GPDO +1 more

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

(R) Nicholson

Claimant

First Secretary of State

Defendant

South Gloucestershire District Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal Under S.289 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Appeal Against Inspector's Upholding of Two Enforcement Notices

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the generator building and wall were permitted development under the General Permitted Development Order 1995 (GPDO)
  2. 2 Whether planning permission should have been granted for the generator building
  3. 3 Whether the enforcement notices were valid and properly varied

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector was entitled in law to conclude that the land was not in agricultural use for the purposes of a trade or business at the time of development, and the generator building was not designed for agricultural purposes. The wall exceeded the permitted height adjacent to a highway used by vehicular traffic, and the inspector's approach to measuring height from the lane side was correct. The appeal against both enforcement notices fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against both enforcement notices dismissed
  • Enforcement notice regarding the wall varied to specify measurement and capping requirements