Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2014] All ER (D) 188 (Jan)
Neutral Citation: [2014] EWHC 15 (Admin)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court
Judge:

Mr Justice Blake

Representation Peter Goatley (instructed by Irwin Mitchell Solicitors) for the claimant.
  Stephen Wale (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.  
  The authority did not appear and was not represented.
Judgment Dates: 17 January 2014

Catchwords

Town and country planning - Permission for development - Refusal - Green belt - Claimant company applying for planning permission for residential development - Second defendant local authority refusing permission - Claimant appealing - First defendant Secretary of State's inspector recommending permission be granted - Secretary of state rejecting inspector's recommendation and refusing permission (the decision) - Claimant applying to quash the decision - Whether local policy for a green belt existing - Whether Secretary of State acting unfairly - Whether Secretary of State having sufficient factual basis for his disagreement with the inspector - Whether Secretary of State taking into account irrelevant considerations - Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) (Rules) 2000 .

The Case

Town and country planning Permission for development. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant company's application under of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the decision of the first defendant Secretary of State to reject the recommendation of his inspector that planning permission be granted for residential development of a piece of agricultural land in Castle Point. In the instant case, the Secretary of State had been right to conclude that there had remained a green belt within Castle Point as a matter of planning policy, he had not acted unfairly, he had had sufficient factual basis for his disagreement with the inspector and he had not taken irrelevant considerations into account.

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