Harrison v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors [2023] EWHC 16 (Admin) (17 January 2023)

Harrison v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors [2023] EWHC 16 (Admin) (17 January 2023)

The Inspector made a material mistake of fact by stating a flood risk assessment had been submitted and relied upon by the drainage officer, when in fact no such assessment existed. This mistake played a material part in the Inspector's reasoning regarding flood risk and the adequacy of conditions, thereby invalidating the decision. The Inspector did not breach the s.66(1) duty regarding heritage assets, and there was no implied duty on the Secretary of State to consult Historic England at appeal stage.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 16 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Ivor Harrison; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: South Cambridgeshire District Council; Third Defendant: William Grain; Fourth Defendant: Elizabeth Grain; Fifth Defendant: Richard Grain
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning Statutory Challenge) / High Court Judgment on S.288 TCPA 1990 Application
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; planning permission quashed
Legal Topics
Mistake of Fact, Flood Risk Assessment, Listed Buildings, Judicial Review, Statutory Consultation, Material Considerations
Planning Law Administrative Law Heritage Law Mistake of Fact Flood Risk Assessment Listed Buildings Judicial Review Statutory Consultation +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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivor Harrison

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

First Defendant

South Cambridgeshire District Council

Second Defendant

William Grain

Third Defendant

Elizabeth Grain

Fourth Defendant

Richard Grain

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning Statutory Challenge) / High Court Judgment on S.288 TCPA 1990 Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector's decision was vitiated by a material mistake of fact regarding the existence of a flood risk assessment
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to comply with the statutory duty under s.66(1) Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
  3. 3 Whether there was a failure to consult Historic England as required by regulation 5A of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector made a material mistake of fact by stating a flood risk assessment had been submitted and relied upon by the drainage officer, when in fact no such assessment existed. This mistake played a material part in the Inspector's reasoning regarding flood risk and the adequacy of conditions, thereby invalidating the decision. The Inspector did not breach the s.66(1) duty regarding heritage assets, and there was no implied duty on the Secretary of State to consult Historic England at appeal stage.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; planning permission quashed

Orders

  • The decision of the Secretary of State (Inspector) dated 1 March 2022 is quashed
  • No order for remittal to Historic England or reconsideration of heritage issues