Coyle v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2008] EWHC 2466 (Admin) (17 June 2008)

Coyle v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2008] EWHC 2466 (Admin) (17 June 2008)

The claim based on the Inspector's alleged failure to consider alternative Green Belt sites is unarguable as the point was not raised before the Inspector and he cannot be criticised for not addressing it. However, the claim that the Inspector failed to give adequate consideration to the exceptional educational disruption to gypsy children is arguable and should proceed to a full hearing.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 2466 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Coyle; First Defendant/applicant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant/applicant: Basildon District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Section 288 Planning Appeal (administrative Court) / Application to Strike Out Claim Under CPR 3.4(2)(a)
Outcome
Application to strike out claim allowed in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Planning Appeals, Green Belt Policy, Material Considerations, Educational Needs of Children, Gypsy and Traveller Rights
Administrative Law Planning Law Strike Out Applications Planning Appeals Green Belt Policy Material Considerations Educational Needs of Children Gypsy and Traveller Rights

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Coyle

Claimant/respondent

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant/applicant

Basildon District Council

Second Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Section 288 Planning Appeal (administrative Court) / Application to Strike Out Claim Under CPR 3.4(2)(a)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Planning Inspector failed to consider a material consideration regarding alternative Green Belt sites
  2. 2 Whether the Planning Inspector gave adequate consideration to the educational needs of the claimant's children

Ratio Decidendi

The claim based on the Inspector's alleged failure to consider alternative Green Belt sites is unarguable as the point was not raised before the Inspector and he cannot be criticised for not addressing it. However, the claim that the Inspector failed to give adequate consideration to the exceptional educational disruption to gypsy children is arguable and should proceed to a full hearing.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out claim allowed in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • First ground of claim (alternative Green Belt site) struck out.
  • Second ground (educational needs of children) to proceed to full hearing.