Ivor Harrison v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors

Ivor Harrison v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors

The inspector’s material mistake of fact regarding the existence of a flood risk assessment played a material part in the reasoning and tainted the decision. The inspector’s reference to the representations and reliance on the drainage officer’s views did not cure the error. The challenge on this ground succeeds and the decision is quashed.

Parties
Claimant: Ivor Harrison; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: South Cambridgeshire District Council; Third Defendant: Elizabeth Grain; Fourth Defendant: Richard Grain; Fifth Defendant: William Grain
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Appeal Decision
Outcome
Application allowed; decision quashed
Legal Topics
Mistake of Fact, Flood Risk Assessment, Heritage Assets, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation
Planning Law Administrative Law Mistake of Fact Flood Risk Assessment Heritage Assets Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation

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 20 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

Elizabeth Grain

Third Defendant

Richard Grain

Fourth Defendant

William Grain

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector's mistake of fact regarding the existence of a flood risk assessment was material to the decision
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to comply with the duty under section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
  3. 3 Whether there was an implied duty to consult Historic England at appeal stage

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector’s material mistake of fact regarding the existence of a flood risk assessment played a material part in the reasoning and tainted the decision. The inspector’s reference to the representations and reliance on the drainage officer’s views did not cure the error. The challenge on this ground succeeds and the decision is quashed.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; decision quashed

Orders

  • The First Defendant’s decision to allow the appeal is quashed.