Antler Homes Wessex Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

Antler Homes Wessex Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

The Inspector did not err in law; he properly recognised that development was in principle acceptable within the Settlement Policy Boundary but exercised his planning judgment to refuse permission based on the intensity and character of the proposed development. There was no procedural unfairness in his reliance on views from the public footpath, as this was an additional matter confirming his main conclusion.

Parties
Claimant: Antler Homes Wessex Limited; 1st Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; 2nd Defendant: East Hampshire District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Settlement Policy Boundary, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness
Planning Law Administrative Law Planning Permission Settlement Policy Boundary Judicial Review Procedural Fairness

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Antler Homes Wessex Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

1st Defendant

East Hampshire District Council

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law in refusing planning permission for backland development within the Settlement Policy Boundary
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Inspector's reliance on views from a public footpath

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law; he properly recognised that development was in principle acceptable within the Settlement Policy Boundary but exercised his planning judgment to refuse permission based on the intensity and character of the proposed development. There was no procedural unfairness in his reliance on views from the public footpath, as this was an additional matter confirming his main conclusion.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed with costs assessed in the sum of £6,288 payable to the Secretary of State