Crossley, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Ors

Crossley, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Ors

There was no legal defect in the inspector's decision; the inspector properly considered all relevant issues, gave appropriate weight to the evidence, and his conclusions were not perverse or unlawful. The application is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Elizabeth Claire Crossley; First Defendant: First Secretary of State; Second Defendant: London Borough of Camden; Third Defendant: J Ross Developments; Fourth Defendant: Charlotte Properties (Doughty Street) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment and Costs Ruling
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Town and Country Planning, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Judicial Review, Costs Assessment
Planning Law Administrative Law Town and Country Planning Listed Buildings Conservation Areas Judicial Review Costs Assessment

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

Parties

Elizabeth Claire Crossley

Claimant

First Secretary of State

First Defendant

London Borough of Camden

Second Defendant

J Ross Developments

Third Defendant

Charlotte Properties (Doughty Street) Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment and Costs Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector's decision to grant planning permission and Conservation Area consent was legally defective
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to give sufficient weight to objectors' evidence
  3. 3 Whether the inspector's conclusions were perverse

Ratio Decidendi

There was no legal defect in the inspector's decision; the inspector properly considered all relevant issues, gave appropriate weight to the evidence, and his conclusions were not perverse or unlawful. The application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application under section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dismissed
  • Claimant to pay costs summarily assessed at £3,000