Murrell & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2010] EWHC 1045 (Admin) (26 March 2010)

Murrell & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2010] EWHC 1045 (Admin) (26 March 2010)

The Inspector did not err in law in her approach to the prior approval process under the GPDO. She addressed the correct questions, balanced the impact on visual amenity against the agricultural need, and was entitled to request further information, which stopped the 28-day period. The reasons given were adequate. The costs decision was not unreasonable. The appeal and judicial review are dismissed.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1045 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: David Sidney Murrell; Claimant: Christine Ruth Murrell; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Broadland District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal and Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Appeal and judicial review dismissed; costs awarded to defendants; permission to appeal granted in part on procedural point.
Legal Topics
Town and Country Planning, Permitted Development Rights, Prior Approval Procedure, Judicial Review, Costs
Planning Law Administrative Law Town and Country Planning Permitted Development Rights Prior Approval Procedure Judicial Review Costs

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Sidney Murrell

Claimant

Christine Ruth Murrell

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Broadland District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal and Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law in her approach to prior approval under the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO)
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to give adequate reasons for her decision
  3. 3 Whether the local planning authority's request for further information stopped the 28-day determination period under the GPDO

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law in her approach to the prior approval process under the GPDO. She addressed the correct questions, balanced the impact on visual amenity against the agricultural need, and was entitled to request further information, which stopped the 28-day period. The reasons given were adequate. The costs decision was not unreasonable. The appeal and judicial review are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal and judicial review dismissed; costs awarded to defendants; permission to appeal granted in part on procedural point.

Orders

  • Section 288 appeal dismissed
  • Judicial review application dismissed (permission granted but claim refused)