Hayter v First Secretary of State & Anor

Hayter v First Secretary of State & Anor

The appeal site was outside the defined development frontage and subject to countryside policies; the inspector's decision was a proper exercise of planning judgment with no error of law; the claimant's arguments regarding the applicability of H2, the adequacy of evidence, and the effect of PPG 3 were unfounded;...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: John Charles Hayter; First Defendant: First Secretary of State; Second Defendant: Winchester City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment and Costs Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs to the first defendant
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Planning Decisions, Interpretation of Local Plans, Costs in Judicial Review
Administrative Law Planning Law Judicial Review of Planning Decisions Interpretation of Local Plans Costs in Judicial Review

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Charles Hayter

Claimant

First Secretary of State

First Defendant

Winchester City Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment and Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector erred in law in dismissing the claimant's planning appeal
  2. 2 Whether the inspector misapplied countryside and development policies
  3. 3 Whether the inspector had sufficient evidence regarding the applicability of countryside policies

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal site was outside the defined development frontage and subject to countryside policies; the inspector's decision was a proper exercise of planning judgment with no error of law; the claimant's arguments regarding the applicability of H2, the adequacy of evidence, and the effect of PPG 3 were unfounded; costs are awarded to the first defendant with a reduction for excessive time claimed on documents.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs to the first defendant

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Claimant to pay the first defendant's costs assessed at £3,679.25