Winifred Helen Ward v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor.

Winifred Helen Ward v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor.

The planning inspector's decision was properly reasoned, considered all relevant factors including equality duty and best interests of the children, and was not irrational; the challenge amounted to disagreement with planning judgment rather than an error of law.

Parties
Claimant: Winifred Helen Ward; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: Basildon District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Planning Statutory Review / Renewed Oral Application for Permission
Outcome
Permission to judicially review the planning inspector's decision is refused.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Planning Permission, Green Belt Policy, Public Sector Equality Duty, Temporary Planning Permission, Human Rights Act, Traveller Sites Policy
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Law Equality Law Judicial Review Planning Permission Green Belt Policy Public Sector Equality Duty +3 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Winifred Helen Ward

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

First Defendant

Basildon District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Planning Statutory Review / Renewed Oral Application for Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning inspector's refusal of temporary planning permission was irrational
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to properly consider the Public Sector Equality Duty
  3. 3 Whether sufficient weight was given to the lack of available sites and the best interests of the children

Ratio Decidendi

The planning inspector's decision was properly reasoned, considered all relevant factors including equality duty and best interests of the children, and was not irrational; the challenge amounted to disagreement with planning judgment rather than an error of law.

Court Disposition

Permission to judicially review the planning inspector's decision is refused.

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.