Stanley v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Ors

Stanley v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Ors

The Inspector was not obliged to consider granting temporary permission for a period other than three years because there was no reasonable expectation that new sites would become available within any foreseeable period. The Inspector gave adequate reasons for refusal, and the decision was a matter of planning judgment, particularly given the harm to the AONB and lack of alternative sites.

Parties
Claimant: Lushey Stanley; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Rother District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Temporary Planning Permission, Gypsy and Traveller Sites, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (aonb), Development Plan Documents (dpd), Article 8 ECHR
Planning Law Administrative Law Human Rights Temporary Planning Permission Gypsy and Traveller Sites Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (aonb) Development Plan Documents (dpd) Article 8 ECHR

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lushey Stanley

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Rother District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in refusing to grant temporary planning permission for a gypsy site in an AONB
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to consider relevant factors including the risk of homelessness and educational disruption
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector gave adequate reasons for refusing temporary permission

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was not obliged to consider granting temporary permission for a period other than three years because there was no reasonable expectation that new sites would become available within any foreseeable period. The Inspector gave adequate reasons for refusal, and the decision was a matter of planning judgment, particularly given the harm to the AONB and lack of alternative sites.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed