River Club, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

River Club, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector erred in law by failing to consider whether the very special circumstances advanced by the claimant, when taken together as a package, amounted to very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the identified harm. The Inspector's approach to 'any other harm' under PPG2 was correct, and there was no procedural unfairness or misapplication of Policy RL2.

Parties
Claimant: The River Club; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Appeal Decision
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; Inspector's decision quashed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Very Special Circumstances, Sustainable Transport, Development Control, Costs
Planning Law Administrative Law Green Belt Policy Very Special Circumstances Sustainable Transport Development Control Costs

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The River Club

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law in interpreting 'any other harm' under PPG2 paragraph 3.2
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to consider cumulative very special circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector properly applied Policy RL2 of the Royal Borough of Kingston Unitary Development Plan

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector erred in law by failing to consider whether the very special circumstances advanced by the claimant, when taken together as a package, amounted to very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the identified harm. The Inspector's approach to 'any other harm' under PPG2 was correct, and there was no procedural unfairness or misapplication of Policy RL2.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; Inspector's decision quashed

Orders

  • The appeal decision is quashed.
  • The Secretary of State to pay the claimant's costs, not to exceed 40% of those costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.