Bounces Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing And Communities & Anor [2023] EWHC 735 (Admin) (30 March 2023)

Bounces Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing And Communities & Anor [2023] EWHC 735 (Admin) (30 March 2023)

The Inspector's decision was procedurally unfair because the applicant was not given an opportunity to address the Inspector's concern about the effect of obscure glass on natural light, a point not previously raised by any party and not reasonably foreseeable. This failure caused material prejudice and rendered the decision unlawful.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 735 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Bounces Properties Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: London Borough of Enfield
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Claim to Quash Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Claim allowed; Inspector's decision quashed
Legal Topics
Prior Approval Under GPDO, Procedural Fairness in Planning Appeals, Adequacy of Natural Light, Inspector's Duties, Material Considerations in Planning
Planning Law Administrative Law Prior Approval Under GPDO Procedural Fairness in Planning Appeals Adequacy of Natural Light Inspector's Duties Material Considerations in Planning

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bounces Properties Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

First Defendant

London Borough of Enfield

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Claim to Quash Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector's decision to dismiss the appeal for prior approval was procedurally unfair
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector erred in law by considering privacy as a material factor
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to consider material evidence or acted irrationally regarding the use of obscure glass and its effect on natural light

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's decision was procedurally unfair because the applicant was not given an opportunity to address the Inspector's concern about the effect of obscure glass on natural light, a point not previously raised by any party and not reasonably foreseeable. This failure caused material prejudice and rendered the decision unlawful.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; Inspector's decision quashed

Orders

  • The Inspector's decision is quashed on grounds of procedural unfairness.
  • Permission to add the ground regarding paragraph W(12) is granted, but the argument is rejected on its merits.