Paterson, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State

Paterson, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State

The Inspector was entitled to interpret the 21 metre privacy standard as applying only between neighbouring properties, not within the same dwelling; was not required to address every minor design issue specifically; and had sufficient evidence to make a planning judgment without further information. The grounds for challenge therefore fail.

Parties
Claimant: Mark Paterson; 1st Defendant: First Secretary of State; 2nd Defendant: London Borough of Hounslow; 3rd Defendant: Wexford Resources
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Appeal Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Planning Decisions, Interpretation of Planning Policy, Procedural Fairness, Costs
Administrative Law Planning Law Judicial Review of Planning Decisions Interpretation of Planning Policy Procedural Fairness Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Paterson

Claimant

First Secretary of State

1st Defendant

London Borough of Hounslow

2nd Defendant

Wexford Resources

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector misapplied the 21 metre privacy standard in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP)
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to consider relevant design guidance regarding habitable rooms overlooking the street/entrance
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector had sufficient evidence to assess the impact on outlook and open aspect for neighbouring properties

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was entitled to interpret the 21 metre privacy standard as applying only between neighbouring properties, not within the same dwelling; was not required to address every minor design issue specifically; and had sufficient evidence to make a planning judgment without further information. The grounds for challenge therefore fail.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant to pay the Secretary of State's costs, summarily assessed at £4,775