London Borough of Haringey, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

London Borough of Haringey, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

The Inspector's decision was fundamentally flawed due to a material error of fact and lack of procedural fairness. He wrongly assumed, without evidence or notice to the parties, that the educational use of Units 1a and 2 was authorised. This assumption was central to his reasoning for granting planning permission and departing from the development plan. The appeal and application are allowed; the planning permission is quashed and the matter remitted to the Secretary of State.

Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Haringey; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: O. A Kwateng (Ebenezer Community Learning Centre)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / Judgment After Hearing of Applications Under Sections 288 and 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Appeal and application allowed; planning permission quashed; matter remitted to Secretary of State; costs awarded to claimant.
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Planning Permission, Material Error of Fact, Procedural Fairness, Development Plan Policy
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Planning Permission Material Error of Fact Procedural Fairness Development Plan Policy

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Haringey

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

O. A Kwateng (Ebenezer Community Learning Centre)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / Judgment After Hearing of Applications Under Sections 288 and 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law by assuming the educational use of Units 1a and 2 was authorised without evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector's failure to give parties an opportunity to comment on the lawfulness of the educational use was unfair and a material error

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's decision was fundamentally flawed due to a material error of fact and lack of procedural fairness. He wrongly assumed, without evidence or notice to the parties, that the educational use of Units 1a and 2 was authorised. This assumption was central to his reasoning for granting planning permission and departing from the development plan. The appeal and application are allowed; the planning permission is quashed and the matter remitted to the Secretary of State.

Court Disposition

Appeal and application allowed; planning permission quashed; matter remitted to Secretary of State; costs awarded to claimant.

Orders

  • Planning permission granted by the Inspector is quashed.
  • Matter remitted to the Secretary of State for reconsideration.