Langton & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Langton & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

The Inspector failed to address a principal issue required by policy: whether there was a reasonable expectation that new gypsy/traveller sites would become available within the relevant period, and failed to provide adequate reasoning on this point. This was a material error going to the heart of the case, rendering the decision unlawful. The Inspector's treatment of Article 8 ECHR was legally adequate, but the failure on the temporary permission policy ground required the decision to be quashed.

Parties
Claimant: Theo Langton; Claimant: Ruth McGill; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: West Dorset District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Decision
Outcome
Application allowed; decision quashed
Legal Topics
Town and Country Planning, Temporary Planning Permission, Gypsy and Traveller Sites, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Development Plan Documents, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Town and Country Planning Temporary Planning Permission Gypsy and Traveller Sites Article 8 ECHR Proportionality +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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Theo Langton

Claimant

Ruth McGill

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

West Dorset District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector properly considered the claimants' Article 8 ECHR rights in the planning decision
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector properly addressed the policy on temporary planning permission in light of unmet need and reasonable expectation of new sites
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector's reasoning on the balance between harm to the AONB and need for gypsy/traveller accommodation was legally adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector failed to address a principal issue required by policy: whether there was a reasonable expectation that new gypsy/traveller sites would become available within the relevant period, and failed to provide adequate reasoning on this point. This was a material error going to the heart of the case, rendering the decision unlawful. The Inspector's treatment of Article 8 ECHR was legally adequate, but the failure on the temporary permission policy ground required the decision to be quashed.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; decision quashed

Orders

  • The decision of the First Defendant dated 22nd November 2007 is quashed.
  • First Defendant to pay the Claimants’ reasonable costs on the standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed.