Ashton, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Ors [2004] EWHC 1855 (Admin) (19 July 2004)

Ashton, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Ors [2004] EWHC 1855 (Admin) (19 July 2004)

The inspector failed to address material considerations (visibility splays X distance and junction spacing) and failed to give reasons for preferring 2.4 metres over 4.5 metres. These were principal issues with conflicting expert evidence. The error was not trivial and could have affected the outcome. Relief should not be refused as it cannot be said the same decision would necessarily have been reached.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1855 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Ashton; First Defendant: First Secretary of State; Second Defendant: Wolverhampton City Council; Third Defendant: Bromley Estates Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; decision of the First Secretary of State quashed.
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Highway Safety, Visibility Splays, Junction Spacing, Reasons for Decisions, Costs
Administrative Law Planning Law Planning Permission Judicial Review Highway Safety Visibility Splays Junction Spacing Reasons for Decisions +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Ashton

Claimant

First Secretary of State

First Defendant

Wolverhampton City Council

Second Defendant

Bromley Estates Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector failed to consider material considerations regarding highway safety (visibility splays and junction spacing)
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to give adequate reasons for his decision
  3. 3 Whether the inspector's decision should be quashed for error of law

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector failed to address material considerations (visibility splays X distance and junction spacing) and failed to give reasons for preferring 2.4 metres over 4.5 metres. These were principal issues with conflicting expert evidence. The error was not trivial and could have affected the outcome. Relief should not be refused as it cannot be said the same decision would necessarily have been reached.

Court Disposition

Application granted; decision of the First Secretary of State quashed.

Orders

  • First Secretary of State's decision quashed.
  • First Secretary of State to pay claimant's costs, less 15% to reflect costs incurred on abandoned issue (preservation of bungalow).