Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2006] All ER (D) 274 (Oct)
Court: Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Sullivan J

Representation Richard Harwood (instructed by WBW Solicitors, Exeter) for the claimant.
  James Strachan (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.
Judgment Dates: 24 October 2006


Town and country planning - Discontinuance order - Use of land - Enforcement notice alleging unlawful change of use - Appeal against enforcement on basis planning permission ought to be granted - Planning inspector considering confirmation of order together with planning merits of appeal - Whether inspector in error - , ss 102(1), 177(1)(a).

The Case

Whether, in reality, there was any substantial difference between considerations relevant to the grant of planning permission under s177 of the and those relevant to the confirmation of a discontinuance order under s103 thereof depended on the facts of the particular case. One had to consider not just the words that had been used, but also the reality of the decision-making process behind those words. In all the circumstances, the inspector had been entitled to consider the planning merits of an appeal against the enforcement notice on the basis that permission ought to be granted together with the question of the confirmation of the discontinuance order, not least because that followed the claimants' case as presented at the inquiry.

Practice Areas

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