The Mayor of London v the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Ors [2020] EWHC 1176 (Admin) (12 May 2020)

The Mayor of London v the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Ors [2020] EWHC 1176 (Admin) (12 May 2020)

The court held that there was no procedural unfairness causing substantial prejudice to the Mayor, as harm to MOL purposes was not a substantial matter in the appeal, the School had resiled from the SOCG during the inquiry, and the Mayor had the opportunity to address the issue. The Secretary of State's approach to MOL and heritage assets was lawful, and the costs order was justified given the Mayor's conduct.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1176 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: The Mayor of London; First Defendant: The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: The Keepers and Governors of the Free Grammar School of John Lyon (Harrow School); Third Defendant: The London Borough of Harrow
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Statutory Review Under S.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Review, Planning Permission, Metropolitan Open Land, Heritage Assets, Procedural Fairness, Costs Orders
Administrative Law Planning Law Local Government Law Statutory Review Planning Permission Metropolitan Open Land Heritage Assets Procedural Fairness +1 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 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Mayor of London

Claimant

The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

The Keepers and Governors of the Free Grammar School of John Lyon (Harrow School)

Second Defendant

The London Borough of Harrow

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Review Under S.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State's decision to allow the appeal and grant planning permission was procedurally unfair due to departure from the Statement of Common Ground without notice
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State erred in law in his approach to harm to Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and heritage assets
  3. 3 Whether the costs order against the Mayor was lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there was no procedural unfairness causing substantial prejudice to the Mayor, as harm to MOL purposes was not a substantial matter in the appeal, the School had resiled from the SOCG during the inquiry, and the Mayor had the opportunity to address the issue. The Secretary of State's approach to MOL and heritage assets was lawful, and the costs order was justified given the Mayor's conduct.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim for statutory review is dismissed.
  • The costs order against the Mayor stands.