Harrogate Borough Council v Crossland & Anor [2012] EWHC 3260 (QB) (20 November 2012)

Harrogate Borough Council v Crossland & Anor [2012] EWHC 3260 (QB) (20 November 2012)

The barn was not reasonably necessary for agricultural purposes and therefore did not qualify as permitted development under the GPDO. The planning application was invalid until the correct fee was paid, but the claimant was entitled to treat the application as valid and serve a counter-notice. No planning permission was granted by default. The Enforcement Notice remained in force, and the defendants' actions in constructing the barn were unlawful. An injunction for demolition was justified.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3260
Parties
Claimant: Harrogate Borough Council; Defendant: Geoffrey Crossland; Defendant: Anne Crossland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Claim for Injunction and Planning Enforcement / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed. Injunction granted.
Legal Topics
Permitted Development Rights, Enforcement Notice, Planning Permission by Default, Agricultural Buildings, Injunctions, Statutory Interpretation
Planning Law Administrative Law Permitted Development Rights Enforcement Notice Planning Permission by Default Agricultural Buildings Injunctions Statutory Interpretation

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harrogate Borough Council

Claimant

Geoffrey Crossland

Defendant

Anne Crossland

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Claim for Injunction and Planning Enforcement / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Enforcement Notice of 20 December 2006 was still in force in January 2008 and made construction of the barn a criminal offence
  2. 2 Whether the barn is 'reasonably necessary for agricultural purposes' within the meaning of the GPDO
  3. 3 Whether planning permission was granted by default under the GPDO in January 2008

Ratio Decidendi

The barn was not reasonably necessary for agricultural purposes and therefore did not qualify as permitted development under the GPDO. The planning application was invalid until the correct fee was paid, but the claimant was entitled to treat the application as valid and serve a counter-notice. No planning permission was granted by default. The Enforcement Notice remained in force, and the defendants' actions in constructing the barn were unlawful. An injunction for demolition was justified.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Injunction granted.

Orders

  • The defendants are restrained from further construction of the barn.
  • The defendants are ordered to demolish the partially constructed barn and restore the land.