Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2010] EWHC 206 (Admin) (15 February 2010)

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2010] EWHC 206 (Admin) (15 February 2010)

The inspector did not err in law by failing to impose or consider a temporary planning permission, as there was no reasonable expectation of alternative sites becoming available within a relevant period, and the inspector's reasoning on site comparison was within his remit and foreseeable by the parties. No procedural unfairness or material error occurred.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 206 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Richard Smith
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Planning Statutory Appeal Under S.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Planning Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Development, Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision, Planning Conditions, Temporary Planning Permission, Procedural Fairness in Planning Appeals
Administrative Law Planning Law Local Government Law Green Belt Development Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision Planning Conditions Temporary Planning Permission Procedural Fairness in Planning Appeals

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

Parties

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Richard Smith

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Planning Statutory Appeal Under S.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Planning Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector erred by failing to consider granting only temporary planning permission
  2. 2 Whether the inspector's reasoning relied on matters not put to the parties, thereby denying procedural fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector did not err in law by failing to impose or consider a temporary planning permission, as there was no reasonable expectation of alternative sites becoming available within a relevant period, and the inspector's reasoning on site comparison was within his remit and foreseeable by the parties. No procedural unfairness or material error occurred.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The inspector's decision stands; no order to quash or remit the decision.