Evans v The Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- NEIL CAMERON QC
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Environmental Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Claimant challenged the decision of an inspector who dismissed his appeals regarding the refusal of planning permission and a lawful development certificate for extensions on his property within an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) and the Metropolitan Green Belt. The High Court dismissed the Claimant's application, upholding the inspector's interpretation of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO) provisions. The court found that extensions of more than one storey beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse are not permitted development if the dwellinghouse is on Article 1(5) land and that permitted development rights do not apply if building operations involved in the construction of any part of a building are unlawful.
Judgment
NEIL CAMERON QC :
Introduction
This is an application for an order pursuant to (“ section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the 1990 Act ”) to quash a decision of 1 st April 2014 of an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. By that decision, the inspector dismissed the Claimant’s appeals against decisions by the Second Defendant, Aylesbury Vale District Council (“the Council”) to refuse to grant planning permission (“Appeal A”) and to refuse to grant a lawful development certificate (“Appeal B”). There is no challenge to the inspector’s decision on Appeal B.
The Claimant relies upon two grounds of claim. In both grounds the Claimant contends the inspector erred in law in his interpretation of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (“the GPDO ”).
Under ground 1 it is contended that the inspector misinterpreted paragraph A.2(c) of Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 .
Under ground 2 it is contended that the inspector misinterpreted Article 3(5) .
The Background Facts
The Claimant is the owner of a property known as Coppice Cottage, Ringshall Road, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire (“the Property”). The Property consists of a detached dwelling together with a U shaped range of outbuildings set in substantial grounds to the north of the village of Ringshall. The Property lies within an area of outstanding natural beauty (“AONB”) and within the Metropolitan Green Belt. As the Property lies within an AONB it is on Article 1(5) land for the purposes of the GPDO .
The Claimant carried out works to extend the rear of the Property at ground and first floor levels. Following the carrying out those works the Claimant, on 18 th October 2011 made an application for retrospective planning permission for part two storey, part single storey side and rear extensions. The planning application was refused by the Council by a decision notice dated 18 th May 2012. The Claimant appealed to the First Defendant. The First Defendant appointed an inspector (Mr. David Fitzsimon) to determine the appeal. The appeal was conducted by way of the written representations procedure. By a decision letter dated 21 st August 2012, the inspector dismissed the appeal. The inspector’s decision was quashed by an order of the High Court dated 24 th June 2013, and remitted to the First Defendant for reconsideration. Mr Fitzsimon’s decision was quashed by consent on the ground that he o