Wenman v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Wenman v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector erred in not treating Policy C2 as a policy for the supply of housing under paragraph 49 NPPF, misapplied Policy RD1, and reversed the test in paragraph 14 NPPF, leading to a flawed decision-making process.

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 TCPA 1990 / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Decision
Outcome
Decision quashed; appeal to be reconsidered by a different inspector.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Planning Permission, National Planning Policy Framework, Traveller Sites, Local Plan Policies
Administrative Law Planning Law Judicial Review Planning Permission National Planning Policy Framework Traveller Sites Local Plan Policies

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 24 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 TCPA 1990 / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in applying the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Local Plan policies to a gypsy caravan site application
  2. 2 Whether Policy C2 and RD1 are policies for the supply of housing within paragraph 49 NPPF
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector misapplied the test in paragraph 14 NPPF

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector erred in not treating Policy C2 as a policy for the supply of housing under paragraph 49 NPPF, misapplied Policy RD1, and reversed the test in paragraph 14 NPPF, leading to a flawed decision-making process.

Court Disposition

Decision quashed; appeal to be reconsidered by a different inspector.

Orders

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