Rencher-Paine v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Rencher-Paine v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The inspector lawfully applied the functional and financial tests under Annex A to PPS7, gave adequate reasons, and was entitled to conclude there was no demonstrable need for a full-time agricultural worker or clear prospect of financial soundness. The applicant's grounds of irrationality and inadequate reasons failed.

Parties
Applicant: Harold William Rencher-Paine; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: Newark and Sherwood District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 288 Challenge, Permanent Agricultural Dwelling, Planning Policy Statement 7 (pps7), Irrationality, Adequacy of Reasons
Planning Law Administrative Law Section 288 Challenge Permanent Agricultural Dwelling Planning Policy Statement 7 (pps7) Irrationality Adequacy of Reasons

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harold William Rencher-Paine

Applicant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

Newark and Sherwood District Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector misapplied the functional test under Annex A to PPS7 for a permanent agricultural dwelling
  2. 2 Whether the inspector lawfully applied the financial test under Annex A to PPS7
  3. 3 Whether the inspector gave adequate reasons for findings of significant harm to the open countryside

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector lawfully applied the functional and financial tests under Annex A to PPS7, gave adequate reasons, and was entitled to conclude there was no demonstrable need for a full-time agricultural worker or clear prospect of financial soundness. The applicant's grounds of irrationality and inadequate reasons failed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed