Turner v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

Turner v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

The Inspector's decision was procedurally unfair because he relied on off-site impacts not raised by the parties or in the Statement of Common Ground, materially influencing his finding of a material change of use. The findings on the commencement date of the use and the refusal to issue a further Certificate of Lawfulness were not in error.

Parties
Appellant: Jonathan Turner; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: South Buckinghamshire District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Planning Appeal Under Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Appeal From Planning Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Material Change of Use, Certificate of Lawfulness, Procedural Fairness, Intensification of Use, Green Belt Policy
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Material Change of Use Certificate of Lawfulness Procedural Fairness Intensification of Use Green Belt Policy

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Turner

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

South Buckinghamshire District Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred by considering off-site impacts contrary to the parties' agreement and procedural fairness
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector's findings on intensification and material change of use were supported by evidence
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector erred in his assessment of the commencement date of the alleged unlawful use

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's decision was procedurally unfair because he relied on off-site impacts not raised by the parties or in the Statement of Common Ground, materially influencing his finding of a material change of use. The findings on the commencement date of the use and the refusal to issue a further Certificate of Lawfulness were not in error.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The Inspector's decision on Grounds (b) and (c) is quashed and must be re-determined by a new Inspector.
  • The Inspector's decision on Ground (d) stands.