Hossack, Regina (on the Application of) v Kettering Borough Council and Another: Admn 31 Jul 2003

The claimant lived near houses used for the occupation by troubled youths. She complained that the occupation was in breach of planning control.
Held: The authority had properly considered the issues it was required to consider and the permission was properly granted.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Richards

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1929 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSimmons v Pizzey HL 1979
As to houses in multiple occupation, ‘both the expression ‘household’ and membership of it is a question of fact and degree, there being no certain indicia the presence or absence of any of which is by itself conclusive’. After reference to the the . .
CitedBarnes v Sheffield City Council CA 1995
A group of five students was held to form a single household. The court identified the factors to assist in identifying whether a house was being occupied as a single household or not: the origin of the tenancy; whether the residents arrived in a . .
CitedGuy Rogers v London Borough of Islington CA 30-Jul-1999
A house had ten bedrooms. One was retained by the owner for use some two months a year, the other nine were let to people in their twenties who had just completed their further education and were embarking on careers in the professions or banking . .
See alsoRegina (on the application of Hossack) v Kettering Borough Council and another CA 25-Jun-2002
A neighbour challenged the use of houses as temporary accommodation for homeless youths. The properties housed up to six youths, who, the council claimed lived together as a single unit, and therefore came within Class C3.
Held: Nothing in the . .

Cited by:

See alsoRegina (on the application of Hossack) v Kettering Borough Council and another CA 25-Jun-2002
A neighbour challenged the use of houses as temporary accommodation for homeless youths. The properties housed up to six youths, who, the council claimed lived together as a single unit, and therefore came within Class C3.
Held: Nothing in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.185045