Mohammed Asghar v SoS for the Environment and Harrogate BC
Mohammed Asghar v SoS for the Environment and Harrogate BC
- 1988
- Journal of Planning and Environment Law (1988) JPL 476-480(5) .
QBD 3 December 1987. Appeal by M against decision of Inspector (I) who upheld an enforcement notice issued by the council (H). The notice alleged a breach of planning control in the construction of a tennis court on land adjoining a dwelling house. I concluded that the curtilage of the original dwelling, a converted barn, did not include the site on which the tennis court was constructed. It was former agricultural land and its use had been changed without the benefit of planning permission and accordingly the permitted development rights accorded by the General Development Orders were not available. In I`s view M had failed to discharge the onus of proof to show that there had been a breach of planning control. M claimed that I had 1) failed to consider whether the tennis court was factually within the curtilage of the house; 2) wrongly taken into account H`s allegation that use for domestic purposes of the land was a use in breach of planning control and 3) wrongly placed on M the
AGRICULTURAL USE
QBD 3 December 1987. Appeal by M against decision of Inspector (I) who upheld an enforcement notice issued by the council (H). The notice alleged a breach of planning control in the construction of a tennis court on land adjoining a dwelling house. I concluded that the curtilage of the original dwelling, a converted barn, did not include the site on which the tennis court was constructed. It was former agricultural land and its use had been changed without the benefit of planning permission and accordingly the permitted development rights accorded by the General Development Orders were not available. In I`s view M had failed to discharge the onus of proof to show that there had been a breach of planning control. M claimed that I had 1) failed to consider whether the tennis court was factually within the curtilage of the house; 2) wrongly taken into account H`s allegation that use for domestic purposes of the land was a use in breach of planning control and 3) wrongly placed on M the
AGRICULTURAL USE