Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2010] All ER (D) 214 (May)
Neutral Citation: [2010] EWCA Civ 600
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judge:

Pill, Maurice Kay and Moore-Bick LJJ

Representation Richard Harwood (instructed by Richard Buxton Solicitors) for A.
  James Maurici (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.
  David Forsdick (instructed by SJ Berwin Solicitors) for Coin Street Community Builders Ltd (CSCB).
Judgment Dates: 24 May 2010

Catchwords

Town and country planning - Permission for development - Appeal - Aggrieved person - Challenge to grant of permission on grounds of irrationality and taking into account immaterial considerations - Appellant being resident of local area - Judge finding not sufficiently involved in planning permission process to count as aggrieved person for purpose of challenge to planning permission - Whether Secretary of State's reasoning on certain issue unlawful - Whether appellant having standing to make statutory challenge to Secretary of State's decision - s 288.

The Case

Town and country planning Permission for development. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, found that the judge had been correct in finding that the Secretary of State had not made a mistake of fact or had regard to an immaterial consideration in upholding her decision to grant planning permission for a site in London. The Court extracted the relevant principles when considering whether a person was aggrieved within the meaning of s288 of the ; and concluded that the appellant had not played a sufficiently active role in the planning process properly to be described as aggrieved within the meaning of that word in s288.

Practice Areas

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