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 thus fell outside permitted development under the GPDO. The application was invalid due to underpayment of the fee, and subsequent payment did not automatically validate the application or render the claimant's counter-notice invalid. No planning permission was granted by default. The Enforcement Notice remained in force, and the defendants' actions were in breach. An injunction for demolition was justified.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3260 (QB)
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, Planning Permission by Default, Enforcement Notices, Injunctions, Reasonable Necessity for Agricultural Buildings
Planning Law Administrative Law Permitted Development Rights Planning Permission by Default Enforcement Notices Injunctions Reasonable Necessity for Agricultural Buildings

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 4
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 partially constructed barn was 'reasonably necessary for agricultural purposes' under the GPDO
  3. 3 Whether planning permission was granted by default in January 2008 under the GPDO

Ratio Decidendi

The barn was not reasonably necessary for agricultural purposes and thus fell outside permitted development under the GPDO. The application was invalid due to underpayment of the fee, and subsequent payment did not automatically validate the application or render the claimant's counter-notice invalid. No planning permission was granted by default. The Enforcement Notice remained in force, and the defendants' actions were in breach. An injunction for demolition was justified.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Injunction granted.

Orders

  • Defendants restrained from further works on the barn.
  • Defendants ordered to demolish the partially constructed barn and restore the land.