Ward v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing And Communities & Anor [2024] EWHC 676 (Admin) (25 March 2024)

Ward v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing And Communities & Anor [2024] EWHC 676 (Admin) (25 March 2024)

The Inspector lawfully applied Green Belt policy, gave appropriate weight to harm and other considerations, and treated 'substantial' and 'significant' as equivalent in the planning balance. The refusal of temporary planning permission was not irrational or disproportionate. The Inspector considered the best...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 676 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Winifred Helen Ward; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: Basildon District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Statutory Review Under Section 288 TCPA 1990 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Traveller Site Planning, Article 8 ECHR, Best Interests of the Child, Proportionality, Statutory Review, Planning Policy for Traveller Sites
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Law Green Belt Policy Traveller Site Planning Article 8 ECHR Best Interests of the Child Proportionality +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Winifred Helen Ward

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

First Defendant

Basildon District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Review Under Section 288 TCPA 1990 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law by attributing 'substantial weight' to Green Belt harm and 'significant weight' to the best interests of the children
  2. 2 Whether the refusal of temporary planning permission was disproportionate and irrational
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to properly consider proportionality under Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector lawfully applied Green Belt policy, gave appropriate weight to harm and other considerations, and treated 'substantial' and 'significant' as equivalent in the planning balance. The refusal of temporary planning permission was not irrational or disproportionate. The Inspector considered the best interests of the children as a primary consideration and properly assessed proportionality under Article 8 ECHR. No error of law was identified in the decision-making process.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed