Hancock v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2012] EWHC 3704 (Admin) (13 December 2012)

Hancock v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2012] EWHC 3704 (Admin) (13 December 2012)

The 1993 planning permission did not grant a subsisting right to have buildings on the site; it permitted certain uses within buildings but not the erection of buildings themselves. Once the original buildings were demolished, there was no lawful right to rebuild without planning permission. The enforcement notice did not infringe any lawful use rights, and its requirements were sufficiently specific. The Inspector's reasoning was adequate. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3704 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Hancock; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Planning Statutory Appeal (s.289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court (administrative Court) Judgment on Appeal From Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Green Belt Policy, Ground (f) Appeal, Lawful Use Rights, Specificity of Enforcement Notice, Costs Assessment
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Green Belt Policy Ground (f) Appeal Lawful Use Rights Specificity of Enforcement Notice Costs Assessment

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hancock

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Planning Statutory Appeal (s.289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court (administrative Court) Judgment on Appeal From Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in dismissing the ground (f) appeal under s.174(2)(f) of the 1990 Act
  2. 2 Whether the enforcement notice requirements were insufficiently specific
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to preserve lawful use rights under the 1993 permission

Ratio Decidendi

The 1993 planning permission did not grant a subsisting right to have buildings on the site; it permitted certain uses within buildings but not the erection of buildings themselves. Once the original buildings were demolished, there was no lawful right to rebuild without planning permission. The enforcement notice did not infringe any lawful use rights, and its requirements were sufficiently specific. The Inspector's reasoning was adequate. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay First Respondent's costs in the amount of £8,715 within 28 days
  • Permission to appeal refused