Mills v The Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government [2019] EWHC 3476 (Admin) (18 December 2019)

Mills v The Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government [2019] EWHC 3476 (Admin) (18 December 2019)

Policy E18 of the East Devon Local Plan applies only to the named seaside resorts and not to Hawkern Cottage; the Inspector erred in law by applying it to the claimant's proposal, but the error was not material to the outcome because the proposal was contrary to other policies and there were no material considerations justifying departure from the Development Plan.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3476 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Clare Mills; First Defendant: The Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: East Devon District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Development Plan Policies, Change of Use, Loss of Holiday Accommodation, Judicial Review of Planning Inspector Decisions

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clare Mills

Claimant

The Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

East Devon District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Policy E18 of the East Devon Local Plan applies to Hawkern Cottage outside the named seaside resorts
  2. 2 Whether the Planning Inspector erred in law by applying Policy E18 to the claimant's proposal

Ratio Decidendi

Policy E18 of the East Devon Local Plan applies only to the named seaside resorts and not to Hawkern Cottage; the Inspector erred in law by applying it to the claimant's proposal, but the error was not material to the outcome because the proposal was contrary to other policies and there were no material considerations justifying departure from the Development Plan.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed