Scrivens v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government [2013] EWHC 3549 (Admin) (22 November 2013)

Scrivens v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government [2013] EWHC 3549 (Admin) (22 November 2013)

The inspectors lawfully exercised their planning judgment in refusing permission for the proposed dwellings, properly balancing sustainability with other material considerations such as landscape and design; compliance with energy requirements is not a trump card. The costs order was justified in substance but required greater specificity as to what costs were payable.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3549 (Admin)
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Stephen Scrivens; Respondent/defendant: Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government; Interested Party: Ashford Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Administrative/planning; Judicial Review / Judgment After Hearing of S.288 Applications and Judicial Review Claim
Outcome
s.288 applications dismissed; judicial review of costs order allowed to limited extent
Legal Topics
Sustainable Development, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Costs Orders, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), EU Directives on Energy, Legitimate Expectation
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Sustainable Development Planning Permission Judicial Review Costs Orders National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) +2 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Scrivens

Applicant/claimant

Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

Respondent/defendant

Ashford Borough Council

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Administrative/planning; Judicial Review / Judgment After Hearing of S.288 Applications and Judicial Review Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inspectors erred in law in dismissing planning appeals for sustainable dwellings
  2. 2 Whether the inspectors failed to properly apply the concept of sustainable development under the NPPF and EU law
  3. 3 Whether the costs order made by the inspector was sufficiently certain

Ratio Decidendi

The inspectors lawfully exercised their planning judgment in refusing permission for the proposed dwellings, properly balancing sustainability with other material considerations such as landscape and design; compliance with energy requirements is not a trump card. The costs order was justified in substance but required greater specificity as to what costs were payable.

Court Disposition

s.288 applications dismissed; judicial review of costs order allowed to limited extent

Orders

  • Planning appeals dismissed; permission for dwellings refused
  • Costs order quashed to the extent that it lacked sufficient certainty; parties to agree revised wording