Wilsdon, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor [2006] EWHC 2980 (Admin) (06 November 2006)

Wilsdon, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor [2006] EWHC 2980 (Admin) (06 November 2006)

The Inspector was entitled to consider the building's size, permanence, and the appellant's intentions in determining whether it was genuinely required temporarily under Class A Part 4 of the GPDO; the building was not reasonably required temporarily for the development and thus not permitted development.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 2980 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Wilsdon; First Respondent: First Secretary of State; Second Respondent: Tewkesbury Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal (planning) / High Court Appeal Under Section 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Permitted Development Rights, Temporary Buildings, Enforcement Notice Appeals, Interpretation of GPDO Class a Part 4, Reasonableness of Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Permitted Development Rights Temporary Buildings Enforcement Notice Appeals Interpretation of GPDO Class a Part 4 Reasonableness of Planning Decisions

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wilsdon

Appellant

First Secretary of State

First Respondent

Tewkesbury Borough Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a substantial building of permanent construction can be considered 'required temporarily' under Class A Part 4 of the GPDO 1995
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector erred in law in interpreting 'temporary building' and 'required temporarily'
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector applied the correct legal test for 'required' under the GPDO

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was entitled to consider the building's size, permanence, and the appellant's intentions in determining whether it was genuinely required temporarily under Class A Part 4 of the GPDO; the building was not reasonably required temporarily for the development and thus not permitted development.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay First Respondent's costs, summarily assessed at £5,000