San Vicente & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Ors

San Vicente & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Ors

Permission to amend the claim to add Amended Ground 1 (procedural unfairness due to failure to notify objectors) is granted because the claimants have a real prospect of success and there is no sufficient prejudice to the defendants or public interest reason to refuse. Permission to add Amended Ground 2 (failure to require EIA) is refused as it is not arguable that the decision was irrational or obviously wrong.

Parties
Claimant: Sandra San Vicente; Claimant: Gerald Carden; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government; Second Defendant: Uttlesford District Council; Third Defendant: Taylor Wimpey UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Application to Amend Grounds; Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Permission to amend granted in part; permission to amend refused in part; summary judgment application falls away
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness in Planning Appeals, Amendment of Pleadings, Environmental Impact Assessment, Protective Costs Orders
Administrative Law Planning Law Procedural Fairness in Planning Appeals Amendment of Pleadings Environmental Impact Assessment Protective Costs Orders

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandra San Vicente

Claimant

Gerald Carden

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

First Defendant

Uttlesford District Council

Second Defendant

Taylor Wimpey UK Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Application to Amend Grounds; Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to amend the claim to add new grounds after expiry of the six-week period under s.288 TCPA 1990
  2. 2 Whether the planning appeal process was procedurally unfair due to failure to notify objectors
  3. 3 Whether failure to require an Environmental Impact Assessment was unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend the claim to add Amended Ground 1 (procedural unfairness due to failure to notify objectors) is granted because the claimants have a real prospect of success and there is no sufficient prejudice to the defendants or public interest reason to refuse. Permission to add Amended Ground 2 (failure to require EIA) is refused as it is not arguable that the decision was irrational or obviously wrong.

Court Disposition

Permission to amend granted in part; permission to amend refused in part; summary judgment application falls away

Orders

  • Permission granted to amend claim to add Amended Ground 1 (procedural unfairness)
  • Permission refused to add Amended Ground 2 (EIA)