University College London, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor [2004] EWHC 2846 (Admin) (24 November 2004)

University College London, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor [2004] EWHC 2846 (Admin) (24 November 2004)

The inspector was entitled, as a matter of planning judgment, to conclude that the proposed development would harm the character or appearance of the Bloomsbury Conservation Area, and all three factors relied upon (harm to courtyard environment, harm to street scene, harm to evidence of historic street pattern) were relevant under section 72(1). There was no error of law in the inspector's approach or reasoning.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 2846 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: University College London; First Defendant: First Secretary of State; Second Defendant: London Borough of Camden
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Conservation Areas, Planning Permission, Section 72(1) Planning (listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Judicial Review, Urban Design, Listed Buildings
Administrative Law Planning Law Conservation Areas Planning Permission Section 72(1) Planning (listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Judicial Review Urban Design Listed Buildings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

University College London

Claimant

First Secretary of State

First Defendant

London Borough of Camden

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning inspector erred in law in dismissing UCL's appeal against refusal of planning permission for student accommodation in a conservation area
  2. 2 Whether the inspector misapplied section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
  3. 3 Whether the inspector failed to consider material considerations or took into account immaterial considerations

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector was entitled, as a matter of planning judgment, to conclude that the proposed development would harm the character or appearance of the Bloomsbury Conservation Area, and all three factors relied upon (harm to courtyard environment, harm to street scene, harm to evidence of historic street pattern) were relevant under section 72(1). There was no error of law in the inspector's approach or reasoning.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant to pay first defendant's costs, summarily assessed at £4,632