Mordue v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors [2015] EWHC 539 (Admin) (09 March 2015)

Mordue v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors [2015] EWHC 539 (Admin) (09 March 2015)

The Inspector did not err in law in his application of section 38(6) of the 2004 Act or section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings Act; he was not required to specify the weight given to each policy conflict or to each instance of harm to heritage assets, and the reasons given were adequate. The Inspector's decision was consistent with the statutory duties and relevant case law, and there was no substantial prejudice to the Claimant.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 539 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Jane Margaret Mordue; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Aidan Jones; Third Defendant: South Northamptonshire Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 288 Challenge, Listed Buildings, Planning Permission, Development Plan, Heritage Assets, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Section 66(1) Planning (listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Planning Law Administrative Law Heritage Law Section 288 Challenge Listed Buildings Planning Permission Development Plan Heritage Assets +3 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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jane Margaret Mordue

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Aidan Jones

Second Defendant

South Northamptonshire Council

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector failed to properly apply section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to properly apply or at all section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to deal with the intrinsic significance of the heritage assets and their settings

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law in his application of section 38(6) of the 2004 Act or section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings Act; he was not required to specify the weight given to each policy conflict or to each instance of harm to heritage assets, and the reasons given were adequate. The Inspector's decision was consistent with the statutory duties and relevant case law, and there was no substantial prejudice to the Claimant.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application to quash the Inspector's decision refused
  • No order as to costs specified in the judgment