West v First Secretary of State & Anor [2005] EWHC 729 (Admin) (27 April 2005)

West v First Secretary of State & Anor [2005] EWHC 729 (Admin) (27 April 2005)

The inspector properly considered both actual and policy harm to the Green Belt, assessed all claimed special circumstances individually and collectively, and was entitled to decide the appeal on the written material provided. There was no procedural unfairness or breach of Article 6 ECHR; the claimant failed to demonstrate any real unfairness or substantial prejudice.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 729 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Sandi Pauline West; First Defendant: First Secretary of State; Second Defendant: Rochford District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Planning Permission Appeals, Procedural Fairness, Written Representations Procedure, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Green Belt Policy Planning Permission Appeals Procedural Fairness Written Representations Procedure Article 6 ECHR +1 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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandi Pauline West

Claimant

First Secretary of State

First Defendant

Rochford District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector failed to consider actual harm to the Green Belt beyond policy harm
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to consider the cumulative effect of factors as very special circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the inspector was required to make further inquiries under the written representations procedure for fairness or under Article 6 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector properly considered both actual and policy harm to the Green Belt, assessed all claimed special circumstances individually and collectively, and was entitled to decide the appeal on the written material provided. There was no procedural unfairness or breach of Article 6 ECHR; the claimant failed to demonstrate any real unfairness or substantial prejudice.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed