Holland v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2014] EWHC 566 (Admin) (11 March 2014)

Holland v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2014] EWHC 566 (Admin) (11 March 2014)

The Inspector did not err in law in her interpretation or application of Policy D17 or the NPPF, nor did she act irrationally or fail to consider relevant evidence; her planning judgments were within her remit and adequately reasoned.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 566 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Christopher John Holland; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Royal Borough of Greenwich; Third Defendant: Peter Hearn
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Conservation Areas, Planning Permission, Demolition of Buildings, Heritage Assets, Judicial Review, Interpretation of Planning Policy
Planning Law Administrative Law Heritage Law Conservation Areas Planning Permission Demolition of Buildings Heritage Assets Judicial Review +1 more

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher John Holland

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Royal Borough of Greenwich

Second Defendant

Peter Hearn

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law in interpreting and applying Policy D17 of the Greenwich Unitary Development Plan
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to have proper regard to the evidence regarding the significance of the house as a heritage asset
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector's decision was irrational or failed to take into account relevant considerations

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law in her interpretation or application of Policy D17 or the NPPF, nor did she act irrationally or fail to consider relevant evidence; her planning judgments were within her remit and adequately reasoned.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to quash the Inspector's decision is refused