Astral De La Mare v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor [2021] EWHC 2724 (Admin) (13 October 2021)

Astral De La Mare v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor [2021] EWHC 2724 (Admin) (13 October 2021)

The inspector did not err in law; she had proper regard to the 2008 planning permission and its basis, but was entitled to determine the appeal on the merits of the detailed design now proposed, which was not addressed by the outline permission. Her reasons were adequate and addressed the principal issue of the scale and design of the proposed dwelling in relation to the character and appearance of the area.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2724 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Astral De La Mare; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Wealden District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Material Considerations in Planning Decisions, Adequacy of Reasons in Planning Decisions, Consistency in Planning Decision Making, Interpretation of Development Plan Policies
Planning Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Material Considerations in Planning Decisions Adequacy of Reasons in Planning Decisions Consistency in Planning Decision Making Interpretation of Development Plan Policies

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Astral De La Mare

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Wealden District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector failed to have regard to a material consideration, namely the basis for the 2008 planning permission
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to give legally adequate reasons for disagreeing with the 2008 planning permission

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector did not err in law; she had proper regard to the 2008 planning permission and its basis, but was entitled to determine the appeal on the merits of the detailed design now proposed, which was not addressed by the outline permission. Her reasons were adequate and addressed the principal issue of the scale and design of the proposed dwelling in relation to the character and appearance of the area.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed.