Holding v First Secretary of State

Holding v First Secretary of State

The inspector was entitled to conclude, as a matter of fact and degree, that the provision of a further large building to accommodate three more aircraft went beyond what could be considered incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such, applying the correct legal test and an objective standard of reasonableness.

Parties
Appellant: Holding; Respondent: First Secretary of State
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal (planning) / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Permitted Development, Incidental Use, Objective Test of Reasonableness, Enforcement Notice, Curtilage, Costs, Permission to Appeal
Planning Law Administrative Law Permitted Development Incidental Use Objective Test of Reasonableness Enforcement Notice Curtilage Costs +1 more

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

Parties

Holding

Appellant

First Secretary of State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal (planning) / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the provision of a hanger to accommodate three aircraft is required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such under Class E of the General Permitted Development Order 1995
  2. 2 Whether the inspector applied the correct legal test in determining 'incidental' use
  3. 3 Whether the inspector's reasoning was inconsistent or inadequately explained

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector was entitled to conclude, as a matter of fact and degree, that the provision of a further large building to accommodate three more aircraft went beyond what could be considered incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such, applying the correct legal test and an objective standard of reasonableness.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay the respondent's costs in the sum of £6,885
  • Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal refused