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

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

The Inspector did not act unreasonably or unlawfully in concluding that the functional need test was not satisfied, as there was no evidence before him of a legal or contractual right preventing the grooms from being required to leave House 1. The Inspector was entitled to reach his conclusion on the evidence presented, and was not under a duty to investigate further in the circumstances of a represented, adversarial planning inquiry.

Parties
Appellant: Paul William George Brook; First Respondent: The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: East Staffordshire Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal Under Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice Appeal, Agricultural Dwellings, Judicial Review, Statutory Appeal, Functional Need Test
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Appeal Agricultural Dwellings Judicial Review Statutory Appeal Functional Need Test

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul William George Brook

Appellant

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

East Staffordshire Borough Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal Under Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector acted unreasonably and unlawfully by concluding that the functional need test was not satisfied for the purposes of section 174(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not act unreasonably or unlawfully in concluding that the functional need test was not satisfied, as there was no evidence before him of a legal or contractual right preventing the grooms from being required to leave House 1. The Inspector was entitled to reach his conclusion on the evidence presented, and was not under a duty to investigate further in the circumstances of a represented, adversarial planning inquiry.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The Appellant do pay the First Respondent’s costs summarily assessed at £12,749.