Baynham v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor [2017] EWHC 3049 (Admin) (28 November 2017)

Baynham v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor [2017] EWHC 3049 (Admin) (28 November 2017)

The Inspector gave adequate and intelligible reasons for her decision, properly interpreted and applied NPPF paragraph 90, and did not have regard to irrelevant considerations. The claim was dismissed as none of the grounds of challenge were made out.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3049 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Lee Baynham; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: East Hertfordshire District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (s.288 Town & Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Inappropriate Development, Planning Appeals, Judicial Review Grounds, Inspector's Reasoning, Openness of Green Belt, Very Special Circumstances
Planning Law Administrative Law Green Belt Policy National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Inappropriate Development Planning Appeals Judicial Review Grounds Inspector's Reasoning +2 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 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Baynham

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

East Hertfordshire District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (s.288 Town & Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector gave intelligible reasons for finding conflict with the fundamental aim of preventing urban sprawl under Green Belt policy
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector misinterpreted NPPF paragraph 90 regarding re-use of buildings in the Green Belt
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector had regard to irrelevant considerations (past domestic use and ownership)

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector gave adequate and intelligible reasons for her decision, properly interpreted and applied NPPF paragraph 90, and did not have regard to irrelevant considerations. The claim was dismissed as none of the grounds of challenge were made out.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed