Murrell & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Murrell & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector addressed the correct legal questions, balanced the visual impact against the agricultural need, and acted reasonably in requesting further information. The absence of explicit reference to Annex E did not invalidate the decision, as the Inspector considered the relevant criteria. The local authority's request for further information effectively stopped the 28-day clock, and the procedural challenge was not made out. The costs decision was within the Inspector's discretion and stands.

Parties
Claimant: David Sidney Murrell; Claimant: Christine Ruth Murrell; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Broadland District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal and Judicial Review / Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing of Section 288 Appeal and Judicial Review Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judicial review application dismissed; permission to appeal granted in part on procedural point only
Legal Topics
Prior Approval Under General Permitted Development Order, Statutory Time Limits for Planning Decisions, Costs in Planning Appeals, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Prior Approval Under General Permitted Development Order Statutory Time Limits for Planning Decisions Costs in Planning Appeals Judicial Review of Planning Decisions

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Sidney Murrell

Claimant

Christine Ruth Murrell

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Broadland District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal and Judicial Review / Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing of Section 288 Appeal and Judicial Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law by failing to consider Annex E of PPG 7 in the prior approval process
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector gave adequate reasons for her decision
  3. 3 Whether the local planning authority's request for further information stopped the 28-day statutory clock for decision-making

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector addressed the correct legal questions, balanced the visual impact against the agricultural need, and acted reasonably in requesting further information. The absence of explicit reference to Annex E did not invalidate the decision, as the Inspector considered the relevant criteria. The local authority's request for further information effectively stopped the 28-day clock, and the procedural challenge was not made out. The costs decision was within the Inspector's discretion and stands.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judicial review application dismissed; permission to appeal granted in part on procedural point only

Orders

  • Section 288 appeal dismissed
  • Judicial review application: permission granted but claim dismissed