Taylor & Sons (Farms) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWCA Civ 1254
The point in plain English: If an enforcement appellant says the notice requires too much, they should spell out the fallback they want the Inspector to adopt. The case also considered agricultural permitted development, but the detailed 1995 GPDO thresholds in the judgment have since been replaced.
What the Court of Appeal decided
The case concerned large areas of hardstanding, imported waste material and a farm track. The Court of Appeal held that the Inspector was entitled to reject the claimed agricultural permitted-development defence on the facts and under the GPDO provisions then in force.
More importantly for enforcement appeals, the Court said that an appellant relying on ground (f) should identify, without prejudice to the main case, the fallback variation sought. An Inspector may explore alternatives, but is not normally required to devise a detailed fallback case which the professionally advised appellant chose not to put forward.
Why it still matters
The agricultural size limits and drafting considered in 2001 are historical. The practical ground (f) point remains useful: if only part of a notice is said to be excessive, explain exactly what should remain and what should be removed.
See Planning Geek’s guides to enforcement appeal grounds and Part 6 agricultural permitted development.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.