Pitt, R (On the Application Of) v Epping Forest District Council

Pitt, R (On the Application Of) v Epping Forest District Council

The Inspector failed to give the appellant a fair opportunity to address the issue of whether the extension was ancillary to the main dwelling and the requirements of class E permitted development rights, breaching principles of natural justice. The fall-back position was central to the planning balance and very special circumstances, and the Inspector's reasoning was flawed and not properly communicated to the parties.

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
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision remitted for reconsideration
Legal Topics
Green Belt Development, Enforcement Notice, Lawful Development Certificate, Ancillary Residential Use, Natural Justice, Permitted Development Rights
Planning Law Administrative Law Green Belt Development Enforcement Notice Lawful Development Certificate Ancillary Residential Use Natural Justice Permitted Development Rights

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 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

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law by concluding the extension was an independent dwelling rather than ancillary to the main dwelling
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was denied a fair opportunity to address the Inspector's findings, breaching natural justice
  3. 3 Whether the fall-back position regarding permitted development rights and lawful development certificate was properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector failed to give the appellant a fair opportunity to address the issue of whether the extension was ancillary to the main dwelling and the requirements of class E permitted development rights, breaching principles of natural justice. The fall-back position was central to the planning balance and very special circumstances, and the Inspector's reasoning was flawed and not properly communicated to the parties.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision remitted for reconsideration

Orders

  • Decision remitted to the Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government with the opinion of the court as set out in the judgment
  • First respondent to pay seventy-five per cent of the appellant's costs of the permission hearing; costs to be taxed if not agreed