Forster v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government [2015] EWHC 2367 (Admin) (06 August 2015)

Forster v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government [2015] EWHC 2367 (Admin) (06 August 2015)

The inspector lawfully exercised his own judgment on the noise and other planning issues, gave adequate reasons, imposed effective conditions, and did not act unfairly or unlawfully in refusing to extend time for further evidence or in his treatment of material considerations. No error of law was established.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2367 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Pauline Forster; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Tower Hamlets London Borough Council; Third Defendant: Swan Housing Association Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Lawfulness of Planning Permission, Procedural Fairness in Planning Appeals, Noise Mitigation in Planning, Listed Building and Conservation Area Consent, Material Considerations in Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Lawfulness of Planning Permission Procedural Fairness in Planning Appeals Noise Mitigation in Planning Listed Building and Conservation Area Consent Material Considerations 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pauline Forster

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Tower Hamlets London Borough Council

Second Defendant

Swan Housing Association Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector misdirected himself regarding noise evidence
  2. 2 Whether the decision was procedurally unfair
  3. 3 Whether deliverability of noise mitigation was a material consideration

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector lawfully exercised his own judgment on the noise and other planning issues, gave adequate reasons, imposed effective conditions, and did not act unfairly or unlawfully in refusing to extend time for further evidence or in his treatment of material considerations. No error of law was established.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 refused
  • Inspector's decision to grant planning permission and consents upheld