O'Connor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2014] EWHC 3821 (Admin) (20 November 2014)

O'Connor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2014] EWHC 3821 (Admin) (20 November 2014)

The Secretary of State's decision was unlawful because he failed to properly consider the Inspector's factual findings and judgment on flood risk, misapplied the Sequential Test, and reached an unreasonable conclusion not supported by the evidence. The decision was tainted by illegality and cannot stand.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3821 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Miles O'Connor; First Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant/respondent: Epping Forest District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Statutory Appeal / Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing on Section 288 and Section 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Applications
Outcome
Claim allowed; Secretary of State's decisions quashed.
Legal Topics
Town and Country Planning, Flood Risk Assessment, Green Belt Policy, Enforcement Notice, Sequential and Exception Test, Best Interests of Children, Article 8 ECHR
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Town and Country Planning Flood Risk Assessment Green Belt Policy Enforcement Notice Sequential and Exception Test +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miles O'Connor

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant/respondent

Epping Forest District Council

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Statutory Appeal / Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing on Section 288 and Section 289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State lawfully assessed flood risk in refusing planning permission and upholding enforcement notice
  2. 2 Whether the Sequential and Exception Tests under the NPPF were properly applied
  3. 3 Whether the best interests of children and proportionality were lawfully considered

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State's decision was unlawful because he failed to properly consider the Inspector's factual findings and judgment on flood risk, misapplied the Sequential Test, and reached an unreasonable conclusion not supported by the evidence. The decision was tainted by illegality and cannot stand.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; Secretary of State's decisions quashed.

Orders

  • Parties to agree the appropriate form of relief and costs; if not agreed, further submissions to be heard.