Wenman v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2015] EWHC 925 (Admin) (21 April 2015)

Wenman v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2015] EWHC 925 (Admin) (21 April 2015)

The Inspector erred in law by not treating Policy C2 as a policy for the supply of housing under paragraph 49 NPPF, misapplying the approach to Policy RD1, and misstating the test in paragraph 14 NPPF. These errors may have affected the outcome, requiring the decision to be quashed and reconsidered.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 925 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Mark Wenman; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Waverley Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Decision quashed; matter remitted for reconsideration by a different inspector.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Planning Policy, Application of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Traveller Site Accommodation, Supply of Housing Policies, Sustainable Development, Weight to Out of Date Policies
Planning Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Interpretation of Planning Policy Application of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Traveller Site Accommodation Supply of Housing Policies Sustainable Development +1 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 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Wenman

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Waverley Borough 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 Inspector erred in law in applying the NPPF and local plan policies to a planning application for a gypsy site
  2. 2 Whether policies restricting development in the countryside are 'policies for the supply of housing' under paragraph 49 NPPF
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector misapplied the test in paragraph 14 NPPF

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector erred in law by not treating Policy C2 as a policy for the supply of housing under paragraph 49 NPPF, misapplying the approach to Policy RD1, and misstating the test in paragraph 14 NPPF. These errors may have affected the outcome, requiring the decision to be quashed and reconsidered.

Court Disposition

Decision quashed; matter remitted for reconsideration by a different inspector.

Orders

  • The Inspector's decision is quashed.
  • The appeal is to be considered afresh by a different inspector.