Knight v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Knight v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector lawfully applied Policy RE2, reasonably determined the site was not a replacement dwelling, found no very special circumstances, and properly considered human rights; no error of law, irrationality, or procedural unfairness occurred.

Parties
Claimant: Raymond Knight; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Tandridge District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Application) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Planning Permission, Previously Developed Land, Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 ECHR, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Local Plan Interpretation, Proportionality, Judicial Review Grounds
Planning Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Green Belt Policy Planning Permission Previously Developed Land Human Rights Act 1998 Article 8 ECHR +4 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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond Knight

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Tandridge District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 Application) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Inspector err in applying green belt policies to the site?
  2. 2 Was the Inspector's decision unreasonable given the site history and claimant's circumstances?
  3. 3 Did the Inspector fail to correctly consider the claimant's rights under the Human Rights Act 1998?

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector lawfully applied Policy RE2, reasonably determined the site was not a replacement dwelling, found no very special circumstances, and properly considered human rights; no error of law, irrationality, or procedural unfairness occurred.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • First defendant awarded costs against claimant, assessed at £5,752