Martin v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Martin v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

The inspector lawfully concluded there would be no harm to the setting or significance of the relevant heritage assets, and it was implicit in his findings that he considered the information before him sufficient; there was no requirement to separately address the sufficiency of information as a principal issue, and his reasons were adequate and legally sound.

Parties
Claimant: Julia Martin; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: West Devon Borough Council; Third Defendants: Mr and Mrs Andrew Heyward
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Heritage Assets, Adequacy of Reasons, Judicial Review, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Listed Buildings Act, Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act
Planning and Environment Law Administrative Law Planning Permission Heritage Assets Adequacy of Reasons Judicial Review National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Listed Buildings Act +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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julia Martin

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

West Devon Borough Council

Second Defendant

Mr and Mrs Andrew Heyward

Third Defendants

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector failed to provide proper and adequate reasons regarding the sufficiency of information on the likely effects of the proposed development on the settings and significance of designated heritage assets
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to take into account relevant government policy and guidance (NPPF paragraphs 128 and 129) in considering the sufficiency of information about heritage assets

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector lawfully concluded there would be no harm to the setting or significance of the relevant heritage assets, and it was implicit in his findings that he considered the information before him sufficient; there was no requirement to separately address the sufficiency of information as a principal issue, and his reasons were adequate and legally sound.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review is dismissed.