Budhdeo & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2016] EWHC 21 (Admin) (11 January 2016)

Budhdeo & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2016] EWHC 21 (Admin) (11 January 2016)

The Inspector lawfully applied the 'materially larger' test, properly assessed both definitional and actual harm to the Green Belt, considered the impact on openness, and conducted the required balancing exercise for 'very special circumstances' under the NPPF. The grounds advanced by the claimants are unarguable and do not justify quashing the decision.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 21 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Shamir Budhdeo; Claimant: Kalpna Budhdeo; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Harrow Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Challenge
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Planning Permission Refusal, Section 288 Challenge, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Materially Larger Test, Openness of Green Belt, Very Special Circumstances, Judicial Review Standards
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Government Law Green Belt Policy Planning Permission Refusal Section 288 Challenge National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Materially Larger Test +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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shamir Budhdeo

Claimant

Kalpna Budhdeo

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Harrow Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law in applying the 'materially larger' test for replacement dwellings in the Green Belt
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector lawfully assessed the impact on openness of the Green Belt
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to distinguish between definitional and actual harm to the Green Belt

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector lawfully applied the 'materially larger' test, properly assessed both definitional and actual harm to the Green Belt, considered the impact on openness, and conducted the required balancing exercise for 'very special circumstances' under the NPPF. The grounds advanced by the claimants are unarguable and do not justify quashing the decision.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave granted to rely on amended grounds
  • Application under section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dismissed