Hancock v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Hancock v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

The 1993 permission did not grant a subsisting right to have buildings on the site of the original buildings; it was a permission for use, not operational development. Once the original buildings were demolished, there was no lawful right to rebuild without further planning permission. The enforcement notice did not fail to preserve any lawful use, and its requirements were sufficiently specific. The Inspector's reasoning on ground (f) was adequate and the appeal was unsustainable.

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
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal Under Section 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Green Belt Policy, Planning Permission, Ground (f) Appeal, Specificity of Enforcement Notice, Costs Assessment
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Green Belt Policy Planning Permission Ground (f) Appeal 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 7 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

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal Under Section 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in his treatment of the ground (f) appeal under section 174(2)(f)
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of the enforcement notice were insufficiently specific

Ratio Decidendi

The 1993 permission did not grant a subsisting right to have buildings on the site of the original buildings; it was a permission for use, not operational development. Once the original buildings were demolished, there was no lawful right to rebuild without further planning permission. The enforcement notice did not fail to preserve any lawful use, and its requirements were sufficiently specific. The Inspector's reasoning on ground (f) was adequate and the appeal was unsustainable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

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