Kemnal Manor Memorial Gardens Ltd v First Secretary of State & Anor [2004] EWHC 2638 (Admin) (16 November 2004)

Kemnal Manor Memorial Gardens Ltd v First Secretary of State & Anor [2004] EWHC 2638 (Admin) (16 November 2004)

The inspector was entitled to conclude that the proposed development was inappropriate in the Green Belt, that very special circumstances did not exist, and that the requirements of PPG17 regarding robust assessment and community support for loss of playing fields were not met. The inspector's reasoning was legally adequate and the application to quash the decision is dismissed.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 2638 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Kemnal Manor Memorial Gardens Ltd.; First Defendant: First Secretary of State; Second Defendant: London Borough of Bromley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Application to Quash Inspector's Decision Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Planning Permission, Change of Use, Cemeteries and Crematoria, Open Space and Playing Fields, Development Plans, Material Considerations, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Green Belt Policy Planning Permission Change of Use Cemeteries and Crematoria Open Space and Playing Fields +3 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kemnal Manor Memorial Gardens Ltd.

Claimant

First Secretary of State

First Defendant

London Borough of Bromley

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Application to Quash Inspector's Decision Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt
  2. 2 Whether very special circumstances exist to justify inappropriate development
  3. 3 Whether the inspector properly applied planning policy regarding playing fields and open space

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector was entitled to conclude that the proposed development was inappropriate in the Green Belt, that very special circumstances did not exist, and that the requirements of PPG17 regarding robust assessment and community support for loss of playing fields were not met. The inspector's reasoning was legally adequate and the application to quash the decision is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to quash inspector's decision refused
  • Parties to attempt to agree costs within 14 days; if not, refer to judge for decision without hearing