Isaacs & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communitites & Local Government & Anor [2009] EWHC 557 (Admin) (26 January 2009)

Isaacs & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communitites & Local Government & Anor [2009] EWHC 557 (Admin) (26 January 2009)

The inspector's decision was quashed because there was genuine doubt as to whether he misunderstood or misapplied Policy HG 11, a key policy for gypsy sites, and failed to give adequate reasons for finding non-compliance with it. This error could have materially affected the outcome, requiring the decision to be set aside and remitted for reconsideration.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 557 (Admin)
Parties
Claimants: Gary Isaacs and Marilyn Isaacs; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: South Somerset District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning Appeal Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Planning Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; inspector's decision quashed; matter remitted for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Planning Permission for Gypsy Sites, Interpretation of Local Planning Policies, Temporary Planning Permission, Section 71 Race Relations Act 1976, Article 8 ECHR, Duty to Give Reasons, Material Considerations in Planning, Costs Orders
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Law Equality Law Planning Permission for Gypsy Sites Interpretation of Local Planning Policies Temporary Planning Permission Section 71 Race Relations Act 1976 +4 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Isaacs and Marilyn Isaacs

Claimants

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

South Somerset District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning Appeal Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Planning Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning inspector misunderstood or misapplied Policy HG 11 regarding gypsy sites
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to comply with Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976
  3. 3 Whether the inspector erred in refusing temporary planning permission

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector's decision was quashed because there was genuine doubt as to whether he misunderstood or misapplied Policy HG 11, a key policy for gypsy sites, and failed to give adequate reasons for finding non-compliance with it. This error could have materially affected the outcome, requiring the decision to be set aside and remitted for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; inspector's decision quashed; matter remitted for reconsideration.

Orders

  • First defendant to pay 80% of claimants' costs.
  • Detailed assessment of claimants' publicly funded costs.