Green v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors [2024] EWHC 2723 (Admin) (29 October 2024)

Green v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors [2024] EWHC 2723 (Admin) (29 October 2024)

The claim fails because the Claimant was procedurally barred from relying on the Arup Review, having failed without good reason to place it before the Inspector or Secretary of State during the appeal process. The Secretary of State was not required to consider the Arup Review as it was not a mandatory material consideration, was not relied upon by any party, and was primarily relevant to plan-making rather than the specific planning balance in the appeals. There was no breach of the duty of sufficient inquiry. Even if there had been an error, the outcome would necessarily have been the same.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2723 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Keep Chiswell Green; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: CALA Homes (Chiltern) Limited; Third Defendant: Headlands Way Limited; Fourth Defendant: St Albans City and District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Statutory Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Material Considerations in Planning, Green Belt Policy, Procedural Fairness, Duty of Inquiry, Finality of Planning Appeals
Planning Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Material Considerations in Planning Green Belt Policy Procedural Fairness Duty of Inquiry Finality of Planning Appeals

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keep Chiswell Green

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

First Defendant

CALA Homes (Chiltern) Limited

Second Defendant

Headlands Way Limited

Third Defendant

St Albans City and District Council

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State unlawfully failed to have regard to the Arup Green Belt Review as a material consideration in determining planning appeals for residential developments in the Green Belt.
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State failed to discharge the duty of sufficient inquiry regarding the Arup Review.
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant was procedurally barred from raising new material not placed before the decision-maker.

Ratio Decidendi

The claim fails because the Claimant was procedurally barred from relying on the Arup Review, having failed without good reason to place it before the Inspector or Secretary of State during the appeal process. The Secretary of State was not required to consider the Arup Review as it was not a mandatory material consideration, was not relied upon by any party, and was primarily relevant to plan-making rather than the specific planning balance in the appeals. There was no breach of the duty of sufficient inquiry. Even if there had been an error, the outcome would necessarily have been the same.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Statutory review refused; planning permissions granted by the Secretary of State stand.