East Hertfordshire District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

East Hertfordshire District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector was entitled to reject the claimant's reliance on NPPF paragraph 55 as a basis for refusing prior approval under Class Q, since the legislative purpose is to facilitate housing supply and accessibility objections must meet a higher threshold than for planning applications. The PPG guidance, while not comprehensive, correctly reflects the legal context. The Inspector's decisions on approval and costs were not legally flawed.

Parties
Claimant: East Hertfordshire District Council; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Sue Tepper
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Permitted Development Rights, Prior Approval Process, Interpretation of Planning Legislation, Costs Awards
Planning Law Administrative Law Permitted Development Rights Prior Approval Process Interpretation of Planning Legislation Costs Awards

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

East Hertfordshire District Council

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Sue Tepper

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, Class Q
  2. 2 Whether Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) can override the Order
  3. 3 Application of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 55 to prior approval under Class Q

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was entitled to reject the claimant's reliance on NPPF paragraph 55 as a basis for refusing prior approval under Class Q, since the legislative purpose is to facilitate housing supply and accessibility objections must meet a higher threshold than for planning applications. The PPG guidance, while not comprehensive, correctly reflects the legal context. The Inspector's decisions on approval and costs were not legally flawed.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • Both claims are dismissed
  • Inspector's decisions on prior approval and costs upheld