Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2003] All ER (D) 162 (Dec)
Court: Administrative Court
Judge:

Harrison J
Representation John Howell QC and Kevin Leigh (instructed by Jenning Son & Ash) for the claimant.
  Nathalie Lieven (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.
Judgment Dates: 9 December 2003

Catchwords

Town and country planning - Development - Permitted development - Permitted classes - Development within curtilage of dwelling house - Use ancillary to the use of the dwellinghouse - Aircraft hangar - Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995,  2.

The Case

In the circumstances of the case, the inspector had not erred in his approach, and had been entitled to conclude that the erection of an aircraft hangar and hard standing by the claimant in which he housed three planes was not a use incidental to the use of a dwellinghouse for residential purposes, and thus was not permitted development within classes E and F of part 1 of Sch2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.

Lexis®Library

  • The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
  • Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
  • Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary