Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2008] All ER (D) 277 (Jun)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court
Judge:

Sullivan J

Representation Clive Newberry QC (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) for the claimant.
  Andrew Sharland (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.
  The local authority did not appear and was not represented.
Judgment Dates: 20 June 2008

Catchwords

Town and country planning - Permission for development - Change of use - Claimant constructing leisure facilities on agricultural land - Local authority requiring leisure facilities to be removed - Authority refusing claimant's application for retrospective planning permission - Claimant maintaining that planning permission for erection of extension on dwelling house implicitly requiring extension of curtilage surrounding dwelling house - Whether permission to extend curtilage implicit in granting permission to extend dwelling house - ss 288, 289.

The Case

The claimant's appeal against the refusal to grant him retrospective planning permission in respect of leisure facilities he had built on agricultural land, based on the arguement that an extension of the curtilage surrounding his dwelling house was implied in a permission that, on its face, only granted permission to extend the dwelling house, was dismissed. In dismissing the appeal the court stated the general rule was that in construing a planning permission which was clear, unambiguous and valid on its face, regard could only be had to the planning permission itself, including the conditions (if any) on it and the express reasons for those conditions. The rule excluded reference to the planning application, as well as to other extrinsic evidence, unless the planning permission incorporated the application by reference. In that situation the application was treated as having become part of the permission. The reason for normally not having regard to the application was that the public should be able to rely on a document which was plain on its face without having to consider whether there was any discrepancy between the permission and the application.

Practice Areas

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