Forster v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government

Forster v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government

The inspector exercised independent judgment on noise and all material considerations, the written representations procedure was fair and properly applied, the planning conditions were effective and enforceable, and no legal error or procedural unfairness occurred. The application was dismissed on all grounds.

Parties
Claimant: Pauline Forster; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Tower Hamlets London Borough Council; Third Defendant: Swan Housing Association Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Application Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness in Planning Appeals, Noise Mitigation in Planning Permission, Listed Building Consent, Planning Conditions, Material Considerations in Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness in Planning Appeals Noise Mitigation in Planning Permission Listed Building Consent Planning Conditions Material Considerations in 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pauline Forster

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Tower Hamlets London Borough Council

Second Defendant

Swan Housing Association Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Application Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning inspector misdirected himself regarding noise evidence
  2. 2 Whether the decision was vitiated by procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether the inspector failed to consider deliverability of noise mitigation measures

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector exercised independent judgment on noise and all material considerations, the written representations procedure was fair and properly applied, the planning conditions were effective and enforceable, and no legal error or procedural unfairness occurred. The application was dismissed on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed