Compton v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2012] EWHC 351 (Admin) (24 February 2012)

Compton v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2012] EWHC 351 (Admin) (24 February 2012)

The Inspector was entitled to find, as a matter of fact and degree, that the planning unit was the whole holding, that there had been a material change of use from agriculture to a mixed use of agriculture and unconnected storage and distribution of animal by-products, and that the change did not occur before the 10-year immunity period. The Inspector's reasoning was sound and supported by the evidence. The appeal was fundamentally misconceived and must be dismissed.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 351 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Nicholas Compton; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: Wiltshire Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Appeal From Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Material Change of Use, Planning Unit, Ancillary Use, Mixed Use, Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Material Change of Use Planning Unit Ancillary Use Mixed Use Town and Country Planning Act 1990

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Compton

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

Wiltshire Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Appeal From Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in upholding the enforcement notice for material change of use from agriculture to mixed use
  2. 2 Whether the planning unit was correctly identified
  3. 3 Whether the change of use was immune from enforcement action under the 10-year rule

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was entitled to find, as a matter of fact and degree, that the planning unit was the whole holding, that there had been a material change of use from agriculture to a mixed use of agriculture and unconnected storage and distribution of animal by-products, and that the change did not occur before the 10-year immunity period. The Inspector's reasoning was sound and supported by the evidence. The appeal was fundamentally misconceived and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the First Respondent
  • Enforcement notice upheld as varied