Steer v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors

Steer v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors

The Inspector erred in law by adopting an artificially narrow approach to the concept of 'setting', treating visual connections as essential and determinative, contrary to the broad meaning in the NPPF, PPG, and Historic England guidance. This error undermined the decision, and it cannot be said the outcome would have been the same had the correct approach been adopted.

Parties
Claimant: Peter John Steer; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Catesby Estates Limited; Third Defendant: Amber Valley Borough Council; Interested Party: Historic England
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 TCPA 1990) / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Decision
Outcome
Application granted; decision quashed
Legal Topics
Setting of Heritage Assets, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions, Interpretation of NPPF and PPG, Section 66(1) Planning (listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Adequacy of Reasons in Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Heritage Law Setting of Heritage Assets Judicial Review of Planning Decisions Interpretation of NPPF and PPG Section 66(1) Planning (listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Adequacy of Reasons 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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter John Steer

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Catesby Estates Limited

Second Defendant

Amber Valley Borough Council

Third Defendant

Historic England

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 TCPA 1990) / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Inspector adopt an unlawfully narrow approach to the definition of 'setting' of a heritage asset?
  2. 2 Did the Inspector misdirect himself in law by treating visual connection as determinative?
  3. 3 Did the Inspector provide adequate reasons for rejecting objectors' evidence, including statutory consultees?

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector erred in law by adopting an artificially narrow approach to the concept of 'setting', treating visual connections as essential and determinative, contrary to the broad meaning in the NPPF, PPG, and Historic England guidance. This error undermined the decision, and it cannot be said the outcome would have been the same had the correct approach been adopted.

Court Disposition

Application granted; decision quashed

Orders

  • The decision of the Inspector dated 22 August 2016 is quashed.