Fowler, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2009] EWHC 1577 (Admin) (10 June 2009)

Fowler, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2009] EWHC 1577 (Admin) (10 June 2009)

The inspector did not err in law or fail to comply with relevant requirements; he considered all material factors, gave adequate reasons, and applied the correct policy. The appeal was dismissed as no legal error was established.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1577 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Dr James Fowler; 1st Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; 2nd Defendant: London Borough of Ealing
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Planning Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Listed Building Consent, Planning Permission, Error of Law, Adequacy of Reasons, Tree Preservation Orders, Costs
Administrative Law Planning Law Heritage Law Listed Building Consent Planning Permission Error of Law Adequacy of Reasons Tree Preservation Orders +1 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr James Fowler

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

1st Defendant

London Borough of Ealing

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Planning Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning inspector erred in law in refusing listed building consent and planning permission
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to take into account material considerations or gave inadequate reasons
  3. 3 Whether the inspector applied the correct policy and legal principles

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector did not err in law or fail to comply with relevant requirements; he considered all material factors, gave adequate reasons, and applied the correct policy. The appeal was dismissed as no legal error was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Claimant to pay Secretary of State's costs summarily assessed at £5,500