Bank v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Bank v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector did not err in law in his analysis of either criterion 1 or criterion 4 of UDP Policy SS6(C). He properly understood and applied the correct test for harm under criterion 1, gave adequate reasons, and was entitled to use current uses for criterion 4 given uncertainties about adjacent units. There was no material mistake of fact regarding the adjacent appeal, and the applicant was responsible for any misunderstanding. The application is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Attijariwafa Bank; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Westminster City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Section 288 Challenge to Planning Appeal Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Planning Policy, Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Application of Local Development Plan Policies, Mistake of Fact in Administrative Decisions, Adequacy of Reasons in Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of Planning Policy Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Application of Local Development Plan Policies Mistake of Fact in Administrative Decisions Adequacy of Reasons in Planning 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attijariwafa Bank

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Westminster City Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Section 288 Challenge to Planning Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector misapplied criterion 1 of UDP Policy SS6(C) by requiring enhancement rather than absence of harm
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector erred in assessing criterion 4 based on current rather than lawful uses
  3. 3 Whether a mistake of fact regarding the status of an adjacent appeal vitiated the decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law in his analysis of either criterion 1 or criterion 4 of UDP Policy SS6(C). He properly understood and applied the correct test for harm under criterion 1, gave adequate reasons, and was entitled to use current uses for criterion 4 given uncertainties about adjacent units. There was no material mistake of fact regarding the adjacent appeal, and the applicant was responsible for any misunderstanding. The application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is dismissed.