Moore v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 1194 (09 October 2013)

Moore v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 1194 (09 October 2013)

The inspector's refusal of temporary planning permission was irrational because he failed to make a necessary finding as to whether it was more likely than not that the claimant and her children would have to resort to roadside camping if evicted, a factor central to the Article 8 balancing exercise and the assessment of planning harm. This omission undermined the lawfulness of the decision, justifying its quashing.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 1194
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Charmaine Moore; Defendant/appellant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Defendant/appellant: London Borough of Bromley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal (planning) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Temporary Planning Permission, Green Belt Policy, Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision, Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private and Family Life), Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Best Interests of Children in Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Temporary Planning Permission Green Belt Policy Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private and Family Life) Wednesbury Unreasonableness +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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charmaine Moore

Claimant/respondent

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Defendant/appellant

London Borough of Bromley

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (planning) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector's refusal of temporary planning permission for a Gypsy and Traveller site was irrational or inadequately reasoned
  2. 2 Whether the inspector was required to make a finding as to the likely outcome for the claimant and her children if evicted (e.g., resort to roadside camping)
  3. 3 Whether the inspector's decision properly balanced Article 8 ECHR rights and planning harm

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector's refusal of temporary planning permission was irrational because he failed to make a necessary finding as to whether it was more likely than not that the claimant and her children would have to resort to roadside camping if evicted, a factor central to the Article 8 balancing exercise and the assessment of planning harm. This omission undermined the lawfulness of the decision, justifying its quashing.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The inspector's decision refusing temporary planning permission is quashed.
  • Order of Cox J in the High Court is upheld.