Compton v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Compton v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector correctly identified the planning unit as the whole holding, properly applied the Burdle tests, and found that a material change of use from agriculture to a mixed use had occurred after 1998 but not before the 10-year immunity period. The Appellant's arguments were inconsistent with his previous successful case in 1998 and failed to demonstrate that the change of use was immune from enforcement. The Inspector's findings were matters of fact and degree and not irrational.

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 / Judgment on Appeal From Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Material Change of Use, Planning Unit, Ancillary Use, Mixed Use, Immunity From Enforcement
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Material Change of Use Planning Unit Ancillary Use Mixed Use Immunity From Enforcement

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 8 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 / Judgment on 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 including storage and distribution of animal by-products
  2. 2 Whether the planning unit was correctly identified
  3. 3 Whether the change of use occurred more than 10 years before enforcement, rendering it immune

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector correctly identified the planning unit as the whole holding, properly applied the Burdle tests, and found that a material change of use from agriculture to a mixed use had occurred after 1998 but not before the 10-year immunity period. The Appellant's arguments were inconsistent with his previous successful case in 1998 and failed to demonstrate that the change of use was immune from enforcement. The Inspector's findings were matters of fact and degree and not irrational.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the First Respondent
  • Appeal dismissed