Holding v First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 3138 (Admin) (09 December 2003)

Holding v First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 3138 (Admin) (09 December 2003)

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 an objective test of reasonableness to the particular...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 3138 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Holding; Respondent: First Secretary of State
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Appeal From Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Permitted Development Rights, Incidental Use, Objective Test of Reasonableness, Enforcement Notices, Curtilage of Dwellinghouse
Planning Law Administrative Law Permitted Development Rights Incidental Use Objective Test of Reasonableness Enforcement Notices Curtilage of Dwellinghouse

Source-derived case record

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Holding

Appellant

First Secretary of State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Appeal From Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the provision of a hanger for 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 Consistency between findings on use and findings on building requirements

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 an objective test of reasonableness to the particular circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

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