Cartledge v Scottish Ministers [2011] ScotCS CSOH_53 (22 March 2011)

Cartledge v Scottish Ministers [2011] ScotCS CSOH_53 (22 March 2011)

The works carried out on the appellant's land were engineering operations requiring specific planning permission. They were not permitted development under the GPDO, nor were they authorised by the 1972 planning permission. The Reporter had ample evidence for his findings, and his decision disclosed no error of law. The enforcement notice was validly applied to the whole site. None of the grounds of appeal succeeded.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_53
Parties
Appellant: Alan Cartledge; Respondents: Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Town and Country Planning (scotland) Act 1997 S. 239 / Outer House, Court of Session, Post Reporter Decision
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Permitted Development, Planning Permission Interpretation, Caravan Sites Regulation
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Permitted Development Planning Permission Interpretation Caravan Sites Regulation

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Cartledge

Appellant

Scottish Ministers

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Town and Country Planning (scotland) Act 1997 S. 239 / Outer House, Court of Session, Post Reporter Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the works carried out constituted 'engineering operations' requiring planning permission
  2. 2 Whether the works were permitted development under the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO)
  3. 3 Whether the 1972 planning permission authorised the works in question

Ratio Decidendi

The works carried out on the appellant's land were engineering operations requiring specific planning permission. They were not permitted development under the GPDO, nor were they authorised by the 1972 planning permission. The Reporter had ample evidence for his findings, and his decision disclosed no error of law. The enforcement notice was validly applied to the whole site. None of the grounds of appeal succeeded.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • The appeal is refused.
  • The enforcement notice stands.