McCarthy & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2006] EWHC 3287 (Admin) (20 December 2006)

McCarthy & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2006] EWHC 3287 (Admin) (20 December 2006)

The Secretary of State was entitled to treat the likelihood and effects of future unauthorised development as a material consideration for precedent in planning decisions. The reasoning for refusing temporary planning permission was adequate and lawful. The Secretary of State properly considered the McCarthys' individual circumstances and Article 8 ECHR rights, and the interference with those rights was proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the countryside. No grounds for quashing the decision were established.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 3287 (Admin)
Parties
Claimants: Patrick and Bridget McCarthy; Claimants: James Sheridan and others; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: South Cambridgeshire District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Gypsy and Traveller Sites, Development Plan Policies, Material Considerations, Precedent in Planning, Temporary Planning Permission, Article 8 ECHR, Statutory Interpretation
Planning Law Administrative Law Human Rights Gypsy and Traveller Sites Development Plan Policies Material Considerations Precedent in Planning Temporary Planning Permission +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick and Bridget McCarthy

Claimants

James Sheridan and others

Claimants

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

South Cambridgeshire District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State lawfully considered precedent and potential for future unauthorised development in refusing planning permission
  2. 2 Whether refusal of temporary planning permission was adequately reasoned
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State failed to properly consider the McCarthys' individual circumstances and Article 8 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State was entitled to treat the likelihood and effects of future unauthorised development as a material consideration for precedent in planning decisions. The reasoning for refusing temporary planning permission was adequate and lawful. The Secretary of State properly considered the McCarthys' individual circumstances and Article 8 ECHR rights, and the interference with those rights was proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the countryside. No grounds for quashing the decision were established.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Applications under section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dismissed
  • No order quashing the Secretary of State's decision