Rye v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors [2024] EWHC 358 (Admin) (22 February 2024)

Rye v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors [2024] EWHC 358 (Admin) (22 February 2024)

The Inspector made a material error of fact by proceeding on the mistaken belief that certain trees depicted as to be retained had not been felled, and this mistake was material to the planning judgment on the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. The decision was therefore unlawful and must be quashed.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 358 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Dr Caroline Rye; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: Derek Warwick Developments; Third Defendant: South Downs National Park Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Statutory Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Substantive Claim After Permission Granted on Ground 1
Outcome
Claim allowed; planning permission quashed.
Legal Topics
Material Error of Fact, Statutory Planning Challenge, Quashing Order, Conservation Area, Tree Protection, Planning Conditions
Administrative Law Planning Law Material Error of Fact Statutory Planning Challenge Quashing Order Conservation Area Tree Protection Planning Conditions

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Caroline Rye

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

First Defendant

Derek Warwick Developments

Second Defendant

South Downs National Park Authority

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Substantive Claim After Permission Granted on Ground 1

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Planning Inspector made a material error of fact regarding the retention of trees on the site
  2. 2 Whether the error was material to the decision to grant planning permission

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector made a material error of fact by proceeding on the mistaken belief that certain trees depicted as to be retained had not been felled, and this mistake was material to the planning judgment on the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. The decision was therefore unlawful and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; planning permission quashed.

Orders

  • Decision letter dated 6 December 2022 granting planning permission is quashed.