McQueen v Mid Suffolk District Council [2026] EWHC 421 (Admin) (26 February 2026)

McQueen v Mid Suffolk District Council [2026] EWHC 421 (Admin) (26 February 2026)

Permission to proceed is granted on grounds 9 and 10, as it is arguable that the officer erred in considering the ancillary relationship between the house and land and failed to reconcile previous inconsistent planning decisions. Permission is refused on all other renewed grounds as they are not arguable or were properly considered by the officer.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 421 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Stuart McQueen; Defendant: Mid Suffolk District Council; Interested Party: Roy Woodfine
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission Hearing (renewed Application)
Outcome
Permission granted in part; permission refused in part.
Legal Topics
Lawful Development Certificate, Curtilage, Permitted Development Rights, Planning History, Settlement Boundary, Material Error of Fact
Administrative Law Planning Law Lawful Development Certificate Curtilage Permitted Development Rights Planning History Settlement Boundary Material Error of Fact

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart McQueen

Claimant

Mid Suffolk District Council

Defendant

Roy Woodfine

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission Hearing (renewed Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the land is within the curtilage of Cadogan House for purposes of permitted development rights
  2. 2 Whether the planning officer erred in considering settlement boundaries
  3. 3 Whether material errors of fact affected the decision

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to proceed is granted on grounds 9 and 10, as it is arguable that the officer erred in considering the ancillary relationship between the house and land and failed to reconcile previous inconsistent planning decisions. Permission is refused on all other renewed grounds as they are not arguable or were properly considered by the officer.

Court Disposition

Permission granted in part; permission refused in part.

Orders

  • Permission to proceed granted on grounds 9 and 10.
  • Permission refused on grounds 4, 5, 8, and 11.