Gill v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Gill v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector's decision was lawful; he implicitly applied section 38(6), properly interpreted and applied the NPPF and relevant development plan policies, made rational planning judgments, and was not required to expressly address the previous appeal decision as it was not sufficiently material.

Parties
Claimant: Raymond Gill; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Central Bedfordshire Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Claim Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Development Plan Compliance, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Section 288 Challenge, Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Consistency in Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Green Belt Policy Development Plan Compliance National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Section 288 Challenge Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Consistency in Planning Decisions

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

Parties

Raymond Gill

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Central Bedfordshire Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Claim Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector failed to have regard to the statutory duty under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector properly interpreted and applied the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) regarding re-use of buildings in the Green Belt
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector reached irrational or unreasonable conclusions unsupported by facts or evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's decision was lawful; he implicitly applied section 38(6), properly interpreted and applied the NPPF and relevant development plan policies, made rational planning judgments, and was not required to expressly address the previous appeal decision as it was not sufficiently material.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed