The London Borough of Bromley v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The London Borough of Bromley v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Providing new buildings fall within the use and restrictions of the applicable indent of paragraph 89 NPPF, the fact that permission may involve a material change of use does not render the development inappropriate; the Inspector did not err in law in concluding the development was appropriate in the Green Belt.

Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Bromley; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Rookery Estates Company
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment and Costs Ruling
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework, Material Change of Use, Appropriate Development, Costs, Permission to Appeal
Planning Law Administrative Law Green Belt Policy Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework Material Change of Use Appropriate Development Costs Permission to Appeal

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

Parties

London Borough of Bromley

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Rookery Estates Company

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment and Costs Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law by treating the proposed development as appropriate in the Green Belt under paragraph 89 of the NPPF
  2. 2 Whether paragraph 89 exceptions permit material changes of use as appropriate development
  3. 3 Proper interpretation of paragraph 89 indent 6 of the NPPF

Ratio Decidendi

Providing new buildings fall within the use and restrictions of the applicable indent of paragraph 89 NPPF, the fact that permission may involve a material change of use does not render the development inappropriate; the Inspector did not err in law in concluding the development was appropriate in the Green Belt.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant to pay First Defendant's costs assessed at £8,582
  • Second Defendant's application for costs refused