Pitt, R (On the Application Of) v Epping Forest District Council [2015] EWHC 1931 (Admin) (12 June 2015)

Pitt, R (On the Application Of) v Epping Forest District Council [2015] EWHC 1931 (Admin) (12 June 2015)

The Inspector erred in law by failing to give the appellant a fair opportunity to address the determinative issue of whether the extension was ancillary to the main dwelling and the relevance of the fall-back position under permitted development rights. This procedural unfairness rendered the decision unlawful and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1931 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Pitt; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government; Second Respondent: Epping Forest District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal (planning) / Appeal Under Section 289 Town & Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision remitted for reconsideration
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice Appeal, Green Belt Policy, Permitted Development Rights, Lawful Development Certificate, Natural Justice, Ancillary Residential Use
Planning Law Administrative Law Public Law Enforcement Notice Appeal Green Belt Policy Permitted Development Rights Lawful Development Certificate Natural Justice +1 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Pitt

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

First Respondent

Epping Forest District Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal (planning) / Appeal Under Section 289 Town & Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Planning Inspector erred in law by treating the extension as an independent dwelling rather than ancillary accommodation
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to provide a fair opportunity for the appellant to address the issue of ancillary use and the fall-back position under permitted development rights
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector properly considered the fall-back position as a very special circumstance to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector erred in law by failing to give the appellant a fair opportunity to address the determinative issue of whether the extension was ancillary to the main dwelling and the relevance of the fall-back position under permitted development rights. This procedural unfairness rendered the decision unlawful and required remittal for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision remitted for reconsideration

Orders

  • Decision of the Planning Inspector quashed and remitted to the Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government for reconsideration in light of the court's judgment
  • First respondent to pay the appellant's costs, with only 75% of the costs of the permission hearing allowed; costs to be taxed if not agreed