Stevens v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2013] EWHC 792 (Admin) (10 April 2013)

Stevens v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2013] EWHC 792 (Admin) (10 April 2013)

The Inspector's factual finding on visual impact was supported by evidence and not erroneous. The Inspector lawfully treated the best interests of the children as a primary consideration, but was not required to give them determinative or overriding weight; the proportionality assessment was properly conducted, and no legal error occurred.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 792 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Jane Stevens; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Guildford Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Article 8 ECHR, Children's Rights, Proportionality, UNCRC Article 3, Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Law Green Belt Policy Article 8 ECHR Children's Rights Proportionality UNCRC Article 3 +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 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jane Stevens

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Guildford Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector's factual finding on visual impact was unsupported by evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector erred in her approach to the best interests of the children under Article 8 ECHR and UNCRC Article 3

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's factual finding on visual impact was supported by evidence and not erroneous. The Inspector lawfully treated the best interests of the children as a primary consideration, but was not required to give them determinative or overriding weight; the proportionality assessment was properly conducted, and no legal error occurred.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No order to quash the Inspector's decision
  • No relief granted to the Claimant