Carroll v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Carroll v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

The Inspector misdirected himself in law by failing to objectively assess the likelihood of reversion to Class B1 office use as a material consideration and by not considering relevant evidence, which may have affected the outcome. The decision must be quashed.

Parties
Claimant: Niall Carroll; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Third Defendant: Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Section 288 TCPA 1990 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Decision quashed
Legal Topics
Material Considerations in Planning Decisions, Permitted Development Rights, Planning Policy Interpretation, Judicial Review Standards, Loss of Business Premises, Change of Use Applications
Planning Law Administrative Law Material Considerations in Planning Decisions Permitted Development Rights Planning Policy Interpretation Judicial Review Standards Loss of Business Premises Change of Use Applications

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 6 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Niall Carroll

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

Second Defendant

Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under Section 288 TCPA 1990 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector failed to properly consider the material consideration of potential reversion to Class B1 office use
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector gave adequate and intelligible reasons for his conclusions
  3. 3 Whether an alternative potential future use is a material consideration under section 70(2) TCPA 1990

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector misdirected himself in law by failing to objectively assess the likelihood of reversion to Class B1 office use as a material consideration and by not considering relevant evidence, which may have affected the outcome. The decision must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Decision quashed

Orders

  • The decision of the First Defendant made on 17 February 2016 is quashed