McCarthy & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

McCarthy & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

The Secretary of State and Inspector were entitled to consider the precedent effect of granting permission, including the likelihood of further unauthorised development, as a material consideration. The refusal of temporary permission was adequately reasoned, balancing the harm to the countryside against the claimants' needs and the uncertainty of alternative site provision. The McCarthys' case was properly considered within the joint decision. The interference with Article 8 rights was justified and proportionate, following the required balancing exercise. No error of law or reasoning justified intervention by the court.

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 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Consolidated Challenges to Planning Appeal Dismissals
Outcome
All grounds of challenge dismissed.
Legal Topics
Gypsy and Traveller Sites, Development Plan Policy, Material Considerations, Temporary Planning Permission, Article 8 ECHR, Precedent in Planning, Alternative Sites, Proportionality
Planning Law Administrative Law Human Rights Gypsy and Traveller Sites Development Plan Policy Material Considerations Temporary Planning Permission Article 8 ECHR +3 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 17 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 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Consolidated Challenges to Planning Appeal Dismissals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State and Inspector erred in considering potential for future unauthorised development as a precedent
  2. 2 Whether refusal of temporary planning permission was adequately reasoned
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State properly considered the McCarthys' individual circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State and Inspector were entitled to consider the precedent effect of granting permission, including the likelihood of further unauthorised development, as a material consideration. The refusal of temporary permission was adequately reasoned, balancing the harm to the countryside against the claimants' needs and the uncertainty of alternative site provision. The McCarthys' case was properly considered within the joint decision. The interference with Article 8 rights was justified and proportionate, following the required balancing exercise. No error of law or reasoning justified intervention by the court.

Court Disposition

All grounds of challenge dismissed.

Orders

  • Applications under section 288 TCPA 1990 dismissed.
  • No quashing of the Secretary of State's decision.