Pyrosome Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities & Anor [2023] EWHC 563 (Admin) (14 March 2023)

Pyrosome Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities & Anor [2023] EWHC 563 (Admin) (14 March 2023)

The claim disclosed no arguable public law error in the Inspector's decision; the Inspector's evaluative judgments on character and appearance, car parking, and affordable housing were within his remit and not legally flawed; procedural issues regarding form and fee did not constitute a knockout blow; permission for statutory review was refused as the claim had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 563 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Pyrosome Ltd; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Statutory Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Renewed Application for Permission
Outcome
Permission for statutory review refused
Legal Topics
Statutory Review, Planning Permission, Judicial Review Procedure, Standing, Delay, Costs
Planning Law Administrative Law Statutory Review Planning Permission Judicial Review Procedure Standing Delay Costs

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pyrosome Ltd

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities

First Defendant

London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Renewed Application for Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector's decision involved a public law error justifying statutory review
  2. 2 Whether delay and payment of the wrong fee precluded the claim
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector's evaluative judgments on character and appearance, car parking, and affordable housing were legally flawed

Ratio Decidendi

The claim disclosed no arguable public law error in the Inspector's decision; the Inspector's evaluative judgments on character and appearance, car parking, and affordable housing were within his remit and not legally flawed; procedural issues regarding form and fee did not constitute a knockout blow; permission for statutory review was refused as the claim had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Permission for statutory review refused

Orders

  • Claimant to pay the Secretary of State's costs of preparing the acknowledgement of service, summarily assessed at £5,804.50