Anderson v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Anderson v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

The Inspector's refusal to admit the Appendix was within her discretion, did not amount to procedural unfairness, and did not deprive Mr Anderson of a reasonable opportunity to present his case. The essential features of his scheme were considered and rejected by the expert panel engineer. Any breaches of the inquiry rules did not cause prejudice or invalidate the decision. The Inspector correctly balanced the statutory requirements for reservoir safety against the harm to the heritage asset and was entitled to reach her conclusion.

Parties
Claimant: Colin William Anderson; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council; Third Defendant: Yorkshire Water Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Material Considerations, Reservoir Safety, Heritage Asset Protection, Planning Permission, Listed Building Consent
Planning Law Administrative Law Heritage Law Procedural Fairness Material Considerations Reservoir Safety Heritage Asset Protection Planning Permission +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin William Anderson

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council

Second Defendant

Yorkshire Water Services Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector's refusal to admit the Appendix to Mr Anderson's proof was procedurally unfair
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to consider material considerations
  3. 3 Whether breaches of the Planning Inquiry Rules rendered the decision invalid

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's refusal to admit the Appendix was within her discretion, did not amount to procedural unfairness, and did not deprive Mr Anderson of a reasonable opportunity to present his case. The essential features of his scheme were considered and rejected by the expert panel engineer. Any breaches of the inquiry rules did not cause prejudice or invalidate the decision. The Inspector correctly balanced the statutory requirements for reservoir safety against the harm to the heritage asset and was entitled to reach her conclusion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application to quash the Inspector's decision refused