Smolas, R (On the Application Of) v Herefordshire Council [2021] EWHC 1663 (Admin) (21 June 2021)

Smolas, R (On the Application Of) v Herefordshire Council [2021] EWHC 1663 (Admin) (21 June 2021)

The Council acted lawfully in determining that the proposed development did not meet the definitional requirements of permitted development under Part 6 of the GPDO and in refusing prior approval and notifying that planning permission was required. The Council was entitled to determine both prior notification and prior approval together. The decision was not irrational, and the Claimant had an adequate alternative remedy by appeal to the Secretary of State, which he should have pursued.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1663 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Paul Smolas; Defendant: Herefordshire Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Permitted Development Rights, Prior Approval Procedure, Judicial Review, Town and Country Planning, Alternative Remedy
Administrative Law Planning Law Permitted Development Rights Prior Approval Procedure Judicial Review Town and Country Planning Alternative Remedy

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Smolas

Claimant

Herefordshire Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council acted unlawfully in determining the proposed development fell outside the scope of permitted development under Part 6 of the GPDO and refusing prior approval.
  2. 2 Whether the Council could lawfully refuse prior approval and determine planning permission was required in a single decision.
  3. 3 Whether the Council's decision was irrational in concluding the building was not reasonably necessary for agriculture.

Ratio Decidendi

The Council acted lawfully in determining that the proposed development did not meet the definitional requirements of permitted development under Part 6 of the GPDO and in refusing prior approval and notifying that planning permission was required. The Council was entitled to determine both prior notification and prior approval together. The decision was not irrational, and the Claimant had an adequate alternative remedy by appeal to the Secretary of State, which he should have pursued.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for judicial review dismissed.