Anderson v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2015] EWHC 3005 (Admin) (23 October 2015)

Anderson v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2015] EWHC 3005 (Admin) (23 October 2015)

The Inspector acted within her discretion in excluding the Appendix, as the essential features of Mr Anderson's scheme were admitted and considered. The scheme was embryonic, rejected by the expert, and withdrawn by Mr Anderson. Any breaches of procedural rules did not cause unfairness or prejudice. The Inspector's decision was lawful, balanced the statutory requirements, and was not procedurally unfair.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 3005 (Admin)
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 (planning) / High Court Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application to quash Inspector's decision refused.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness in Planning Inquiries, Material Considerations in Planning Decisions, Listed Building Consent, Reservoir Safety Regulation, Notification Requirements Under Planning Rules
Planning Law Administrative Law Heritage Law Procedural Fairness in Planning Inquiries Material Considerations in Planning Decisions Listed Building Consent Reservoir Safety Regulation Notification Requirements Under Planning Rules

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 (planning) / High Court Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector's exclusion of the Appendix from Mr Anderson's evidence was unlawful or procedurally unfair
  2. 2 Whether breaches of notification and site visit rules rendered the inquiry unfair
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to consider material considerations regarding alternative engineering options

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector acted within her discretion in excluding the Appendix, as the essential features of Mr Anderson's scheme were admitted and considered. The scheme was embryonic, rejected by the expert, and withdrawn by Mr Anderson. Any breaches of procedural rules did not cause unfairness or prejudice. The Inspector's decision was lawful, balanced the statutory requirements, and was not procedurally unfair.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application to quash Inspector's decision refused.