Trend Properties Ltd., R (on the application of) v Borough of Islington & Anor

Trend Properties Ltd., R (on the application of) v Borough of Islington & Anor

The Inspector was entitled to consider outlook and sense of enclosure under the development plan, gave adequate reasons, was not procedurally unfair in his site visit, did not ignore the fallback position, and was entitled to reach his conclusion on the evidence before him.

Parties
Claimant: Trend Properties Limited; First Defendant: London Borough of Islington; Second Defendant: The First Secretary of State
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Appeal Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Development Plans, Inspector's Duties, Site Visit Requirements, Fallback Position in Planning, Assessment of Visual Gaps and Amenity
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of Development Plans Inspector's Duties Site Visit Requirements Fallback Position in Planning Assessment of Visual Gaps and Amenity

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trend Properties Limited

Claimant

London Borough of Islington

First Defendant

The First Secretary of State

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Appeal Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Planning Inspector misinterpreted the development plan policies D3 and D4
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to give adequate reasons
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector's site visit was procedurally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was entitled to consider outlook and sense of enclosure under the development plan, gave adequate reasons, was not procedurally unfair in his site visit, did not ignore the fallback position, and was entitled to reach his conclusion on the evidence before him.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application under section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dismissed
  • Claimant to pay costs summarily assessed at £4,300 to the first defendant