Copas & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2014] EWHC 2634 (Admin) (30 July 2014)

Copas & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2014] EWHC 2634 (Admin) (30 July 2014)

The Inspector did not misunderstand or misapply the Ministerial Written Statement; it clarified existing policy and did not introduce new policy. There was no procedural unfairness in not putting the Statement to the parties, as it was a matter of government policy and the Claimants were professionally represented. The Inspector's assessment of the weight to be given to alternative sites was a matter of planning judgment and not inconsistent or irrational. The application is dismissed.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2634 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: James Arthur Copas; Claimant: Richard William Copas; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government; Second Defendant: Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Application Under S.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Affordable Housing, Procedural Fairness, Ministerial Statements, Weight of Planning Considerations
Planning Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Green Belt Policy Affordable Housing Procedural Fairness Ministerial Statements Weight of Planning Considerations

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Arthur Copas

Claimant

Richard William Copas

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

First Defendant

Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Application Under S.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector misunderstood or misapplied the Ministerial Written Statement on Green Belt policy
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Inspector's use of the Written Statement without giving parties an opportunity to comment
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector erred in the weight attached to the availability of alternative sites

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not misunderstand or misapply the Ministerial Written Statement; it clarified existing policy and did not introduce new policy. There was no procedural unfairness in not putting the Statement to the parties, as it was a matter of government policy and the Claimants were professionally represented. The Inspector's assessment of the weight to be given to alternative sites was a matter of planning judgment and not inconsistent or irrational. The application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed