Hiley v The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing And Communities & Anor [2022] EWHC 1289 (Admin) (27 May 2022)

Hiley v The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing And Communities & Anor [2022] EWHC 1289 (Admin) (27 May 2022)

The Inspector misapplied the law on curtilage by relying on incorrect criteria such as smallness, enclosure, and functional separation, contrary to the authoritative test that curtilage is determined by whether land is so intimately associated with a building as to form part and parcel of it. These legal errors were sufficiently serious to render the decision unlawful.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1289 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Herbert Hiley; First Respondent: The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Second Respondent: East Lindsey District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal Under S 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Appeal From Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Inspector's decision quashed; matter remitted for fresh decision.
Legal Topics
Curtilage Determination, Certificate of Lawfulness, Permitted Development Rights, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Curtilage Determination Certificate of Lawfulness Permitted Development Rights Judicial Review of Planning Decisions

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 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Herbert Hiley

Appellant

The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

First Respondent

East Lindsey District Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal Under S 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Appeal From Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law in determining that the proposed development was not within the curtilage of the existing industrial buildings under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector misapplied the law on curtilage by relying on incorrect criteria such as smallness, enclosure, and functional separation, contrary to the authoritative test that curtilage is determined by whether land is so intimately associated with a building as to form part and parcel of it. These legal errors were sufficiently serious to render the decision unlawful.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Inspector's decision quashed; matter remitted for fresh decision.

Orders

  • Inspector's decision quashed.
  • Matter remitted to Secretary of State for a fresh decision under s 195 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.