JB Trustees Ltd & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

JB Trustees Ltd & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

The claimants were not 'persons aggrieved' under section 288 as they withdrew their objection and did not participate in the appeal process, leaving no relevant grievance before the inspector. The inspector's imposition of condition 8 was a lawful exercise of planning judgment, aiming for connectibility rather than connectivity, and did not involve any immaterial consideration. The inspector's reasons were intelligible and adequate.

Parties
Claimant: JB Trustees Limited; Claimant: Phillip Jeans; Claimant: Sandra Jeans; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Broadland District Council; Third Defendant: Dennis Jeans Developments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Statutory Challenge Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Standing (person Aggrieved), Planning Permission Conditions, Judicial Review Principles, Interpretation of Planning Policy
Planning Law Administrative Law Standing (person Aggrieved) Planning Permission Conditions Judicial Review Principles Interpretation of Planning Policy

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JB Trustees Limited

Claimant

Phillip Jeans

Claimant

Sandra Jeans

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Broadland District Council

Second Defendant

Dennis Jeans Developments Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Challenge Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants have standing as a 'person aggrieved' under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether the inspector erred in law in imposing condition 8 regarding pedestrian and cycle path connectivity
  3. 3 Whether the inspector's reasons were intelligible and adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants were not 'persons aggrieved' under section 288 as they withdrew their objection and did not participate in the appeal process, leaving no relevant grievance before the inspector. The inspector's imposition of condition 8 was a lawful exercise of planning judgment, aiming for connectibility rather than connectivity, and did not involve any immaterial consideration. The inspector's reasons were intelligible and adequate.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The claimants' application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is dismissed.