Phillips v First Secretary of State & Ors [2003] EWHC 2415 (Admin) (22 October 2003)

Phillips v First Secretary of State & Ors [2003] EWHC 2415 (Admin) (22 October 2003)

Procedural unfairness occurred because the developer's stated search area for alternative sites changed during the appeal process, and the claimant was not given a fair opportunity to make representations on the new, wider search area. This deprived her of the chance to suggest specific alternative sites, which might have affected the inspector's decision. The inspector's decision was therefore quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 2415 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Jodie Phillips; First Defendant: First Secretary of State; Second Defendant: Havant Borough Council; Third Defendant: Hutchison 3G (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (s.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment on Claim to Quash Planning Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Claim allowed; inspector's decision quashed and matter remitted for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness in Planning Appeals, Material Considerations in Planning Decisions, Telecommunications Infrastructure, Judicial Review of Inspector Decisions
Administrative Law Planning Law Public Law Procedural Fairness in Planning Appeals Material Considerations in Planning Decisions Telecommunications Infrastructure Judicial Review of Inspector 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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jodie Phillips

Claimant

First Secretary of State

First Defendant

Havant Borough Council

Second Defendant

Hutchison 3G (UK) Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (s.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment on Claim to Quash Planning Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether procedural unfairness occurred due to a change in the stated search area for alternative sites by the developer during the planning appeal process
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was denied a fair opportunity to make representations on the changed case regarding alternative sites
  3. 3 Whether alternative sites were a material consideration in the planning decision

Ratio Decidendi

Procedural unfairness occurred because the developer's stated search area for alternative sites changed during the appeal process, and the claimant was not given a fair opportunity to make representations on the new, wider search area. This deprived her of the chance to suggest specific alternative sites, which might have affected the inspector's decision. The inspector's decision was therefore quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Inspector's decision quashed under s.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
  • Matter remitted to the Secretary of State for reconsideration.