QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
B e f o r e :
|FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE||(1st DEFENDANT)|
|SOUTH HOLLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL||(2nd DEFENDANT)|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR T MORSHEAD appeared on behalf of the FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE
Crown Copyright ©
"Mr Blackburn now resides in a caravan on the above paddock as he had registered as homeless and the local council have no alternative accommodation in the area."
"In default of compliance with the fee requirements, the deemed application for planning permission does not fall to be considered.
"1. The appellant acknowledged at the hearing that he had, for some time prior to the notice being served, occupied the caravan site at the site, as his place of residence. This was in accordance with the Council's evidence. He had stopping living there before the notice was served. Though he had done some work of an agricultural nature, including planting a number of Christmas trees to be grown and harvested commercially, this was not a full time occupation, and he had not stayed at the site simply to carry out that work.
2. Those agreed facts are sufficient to dispose of the ground (c) appeal. The notice allegation is effectively of residential use, as the appellant understands, and my judgment is that a change to that use had indeed taken place, so as to justify the notice. Significantly more has happened than just attendance at the site, including perhaps overnight stays, necessary to carry on agricultural work there. The argument might more strictly have been put under ground (b), but in the circumstances nothing turns on that.
3. The ground (C) appeal is to be rejected."
"Planning not required as activities carried out on land agricultural I appealed the decision under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 174(B). This has been ignored. I have been unable to get legal aid and defend myself. I have been spied upon and photos taken of my land and possessions violation of my human rights, Article 6, Article 8."
"Put plainly, the appellant's evidence is simply that he personally cannot afford to buy himself a house at the prevailing prices."
"That, I consider, is an insecure basis upon which to found the conclusion that there is such a general problem as to warrant the application of the exceptional mechanism of the policies at issue."
"The objections to the proposed development are serious ones and could not be overcome by granting a temporary planning permission or one subject to other conditions. The public interest can only be safeguarded by the refusal of permission. In all the circumstances, I consider that the refusal of planning permission is necessary in a democratic society in furtherance of the legitimate aims stated."