Baynham v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

Baynham v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

The Inspector gave adequate and intelligible reasons for her decision, properly interpreted and applied NPPF para 90, and did not take into account irrelevant considerations; the claim fails on all grounds.

Parties
Claimant: Lee Baynham; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: East Hertfordshire District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (s.288 Town & Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment on Substantive Claim
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Judicial Review of Planning Inspector Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Green Belt Policy Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Judicial Review of Planning Inspector Decisions

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Baynham

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

East Hertfordshire District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (s.288 Town & Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment on Substantive Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector gave adequate and intelligible reasons for her decision that the proposed re-use of the barn conflicted with the fundamental aim of preventing urban sprawl under Green Belt policy
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector misinterpreted and misapplied paragraph 90 of the NPPF regarding re-use of buildings in the Green Belt
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector took into account irrelevant considerations regarding past use and ownership of the barn

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector gave adequate and intelligible reasons for her decision, properly interpreted and applied NPPF para 90, and did not take into account irrelevant considerations; the claim fails on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed.