Scrivens v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

Scrivens v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

The inspectors did not err in law in refusing planning permission for the applicant's proposed sustainable dwellings. They properly considered the development plan, the NPPF, and all material considerations, including the impact on the character and appearance of the countryside. Compliance with energy requirements and the applicant's 'Pentalogy' did not override other planning factors. The inspectors' judgments were not irrational. The costs order was insufficiently certain and must be quashed to that extent.

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
Judicial Review and Statutory Appeal (planning) / Judgment After Hearing of Conjoined Applications
Outcome
Applications under section 288 dismissed; costs order quashed to the extent of insufficient certainty.
Legal Topics
Sustainable Development, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Costs Orders, Legitimate Expectation, European Union Law, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Human Rights Sustainable Development Planning Permission Judicial Review Costs Orders +5 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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

Judicial Review and Statutory Appeal (planning) / Judgment After Hearing of Conjoined Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspectors erred in law in dismissing appeals against refusal of planning permission 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 was sufficiently certain and lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The inspectors did not err in law in refusing planning permission for the applicant's proposed sustainable dwellings. They properly considered the development plan, the NPPF, and all material considerations, including the impact on the character and appearance of the countryside. Compliance with energy requirements and the applicant's 'Pentalogy' did not override other planning factors. The inspectors' judgments were not irrational. The costs order was insufficiently certain and must be quashed to that extent.

Court Disposition

Applications under section 288 dismissed; costs order quashed to the extent of insufficient certainty.

Orders

  • Section 288 applications dismissed
  • Costs order quashed to the extent it lacked sufficient certainty; parties to agree revised order