Sykes v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Anor

Sykes v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Anor

The Inspector did not err in law by failing to consider the likelihood of alternative accommodation outside the Borough, nor by failing to give adequate reasons for refusing temporary permission or for not granting permission for fewer than 13 pitches. The Inspector's reasons were adequate, and any deficiencies did not cause substantial prejudice. The planning judgment that Green Belt harm was not outweighed by other considerations was lawfully reached.

Parties
Claimant: Hughie Sykes; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Runnymede Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 TCPA 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Protection, Temporary Planning Permission, Traveller Sites, Judicial Review, Article 8 ECHR, Best Interests of the Child, Duty to Give Reasons
Planning Law Administrative Law Human Rights Green Belt Protection Temporary Planning Permission Traveller Sites Judicial Review Article 8 ECHR +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 6 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hughie Sykes

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Runnymede Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 TCPA 1990) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector failed to consider the likelihood of alternative accommodation outside the Borough at the end of a temporary period
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to give adequate reasons for refusing temporary planning permission
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to consider granting permission for fewer than 13 pitches

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law by failing to consider the likelihood of alternative accommodation outside the Borough, nor by failing to give adequate reasons for refusing temporary permission or for not granting permission for fewer than 13 pitches. The Inspector's reasons were adequate, and any deficiencies did not cause substantial prejudice. The planning judgment that Green Belt harm was not outweighed by other considerations was lawfully reached.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed