Durant & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2016] EWHC 321 (Admin) (19 February 2016)

Durant & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2016] EWHC 321 (Admin) (19 February 2016)

There was no procedural unfairness in the inspector's acceptance of updated evidence regarding alternative sites; the inspector properly considered both the availability and suitability of alternative accommodation, including the claimants' personal circumstances and Article 8 ECHR rights; and gave adequate reasons for her decision. The grounds of challenge were not made out.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 321 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Anthony Durant; Claimant/appellant: Horace Durant; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Defendant/respondent: Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Statutory Appeal (planning) / Substantive Hearing of S.288 Application and Rolled Up Hearing of S.289 Appeal
Outcome
Application under s.288 dismissed; permission to proceed with s.289 appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Green Belt Development, Gypsy and Traveller Sites, Procedural Fairness, Article 8 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Statutory Planning Appeals, Availability and Suitability of Alternative Accommodation
Planning Law Administrative Law Human Rights Green Belt Development Gypsy and Traveller Sites Procedural Fairness Article 8 ECHR Article 6 ECHR +2 more

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Durant

Claimant/appellant

Horace Durant

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Defendant/respondent

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Statutory Appeal (planning) / Substantive Hearing of S.288 Application and Rolled Up Hearing of S.289 Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning inspector's decision was procedurally unfair due to alleged late evidence
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to properly consider the availability and suitability of alternative accommodation for the claimants
  3. 3 Whether the inspector failed to have proper regard to the claimants' Article 8 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

There was no procedural unfairness in the inspector's acceptance of updated evidence regarding alternative sites; the inspector properly considered both the availability and suitability of alternative accommodation, including the claimants' personal circumstances and Article 8 ECHR rights; and gave adequate reasons for her decision. The grounds of challenge were not made out.

Court Disposition

Application under s.288 dismissed; permission to proceed with s.289 appeal refused.

Orders

  • Application under s.288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dismissed.
  • Permission to proceed with s.289 appeal refused.