Van Dem Boomen & Anor, R (on the application of) v Ashford Borough Council & Anor [2007] EWHC 554 (Admin) (19 January 2007)

Van Dem Boomen & Anor, R (on the application of) v Ashford Borough Council & Anor [2007] EWHC 554 (Admin) (19 January 2007)

The Inspector's decision was quashed because it was based on a new issue (the suitability of the oast house for conversion) that was not fairly raised with the parties, depriving the claimants of a fair opportunity to respond and thus breaching natural justice. The costs decision was upheld as the Council's conduct was not found to be unreasonable, despite the Inspector's disagreement with its substantive position.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 554 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Mr HCL van Dem Boomen; Claimant: Mrs J-E van Dem Boomen; First Defendant: First Secretary of State; Second Defendant: Ashford Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Administrative Judicial Review and Statutory Planning Appeal / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Section 288 application allowed; Judicial Review application dismissed; permission to appeal refused in both cases.
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Procedural Fairness, Planning Permission, Section 288 Appeal, Judicial Review, Costs Assessment
Administrative Law Planning Law Natural Justice Procedural Fairness Planning Permission Section 288 Appeal Judicial Review Costs Assessment

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

Parties

Mr HCL van Dem Boomen

Claimant

Mrs J-E van Dem Boomen

Claimant

First Secretary of State

First Defendant

Ashford Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Administrative Judicial Review and Statutory Planning Appeal / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector's decision was procedurally unfair and breached natural justice by determining the appeal on an issue not fairly raised with the parties
  2. 2 Whether the costs decision was perverse or legally erroneous

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's decision was quashed because it was based on a new issue (the suitability of the oast house for conversion) that was not fairly raised with the parties, depriving the claimants of a fair opportunity to respond and thus breaching natural justice. The costs decision was upheld as the Council's conduct was not found to be unreasonable, despite the Inspector's disagreement with its substantive position.

Court Disposition

Section 288 application allowed; Judicial Review application dismissed; permission to appeal refused in both cases.

Orders

  • Inspector's decision quashed under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
  • Judicial Review application dismissed.