Eley v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Eley v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

There is no general obligation on an appellant in a planning appeal under the written representations procedure to disclose adverse facts or documents unless selective disclosure would mislead the Inspector. In this case, the failure to disclose further information about badgers and ownership/control of adjoining land did not result in procedural unfairness or a material mistake of fact. The Inspector's decision would have been the same even if disclosure had occurred. No grounds exist for quashing the planning permission.

Parties
Claimant: Elizabeth Eley; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Watford Borough Council; Third Defendant: Visao Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Permission
Outcome
Claim dismissed; planning permission upheld
Legal Topics
Disclosure Obligations in Planning Appeals, Mistake of Fact as Ground for Judicial Review, Environmental Impact Assessment, Affordable Housing Requirements, Procedural Fairness in Written Representations
Administrative Law Planning Law Disclosure Obligations in Planning Appeals Mistake of Fact as Ground for Judicial Review Environmental Impact Assessment Affordable Housing Requirements Procedural Fairness in Written Representations

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth Eley

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Watford Borough Council

Second Defendant

Visao Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant in a planning appeal under the written representations procedure is under a duty to disclose material facts adverse to its case to the Inspector
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector's decision was vitiated by a material mistake of fact regarding the presence of badgers on the site
  3. 3 Whether failure to disclose ownership/control of adjoining land (potential for further development) was material to the Inspector's decision

Ratio Decidendi

There is no general obligation on an appellant in a planning appeal under the written representations procedure to disclose adverse facts or documents unless selective disclosure would mislead the Inspector. In this case, the failure to disclose further information about badgers and ownership/control of adjoining land did not result in procedural unfairness or a material mistake of fact. The Inspector's decision would have been the same even if disclosure had occurred. No grounds exist for quashing the planning permission.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; planning permission upheld