Banner Homes Central Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Banner Homes Central Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector did not err in law in dismissing the appeals; the reasoning regarding the impact on the protected oak tree and amenity space was lawful, the alleged mistake of fact was not unfair, and the Claimant had opportunity to address all material issues.

Parties
Claimant: Banner Homes Central Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: London Borough of Hillingdon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Town and Country Planning, Tree Preservation Orders, Judicial Review, Statutory Appeal, Local Government Powers
Planning Law Administrative Law Town and Country Planning Tree Preservation Orders Judicial Review Statutory Appeal Local Government Powers

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Banner Homes Central Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

London Borough of Hillingdon

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law in dismissing appeals against refusal of planning permission for development at Oakhurst, Northwood, due to the impact on a protected oak tree (T29) and amenity space.
  2. 2 Whether a mistake of fact amounting to an error of law occurred regarding the loss of garden land.
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector's reasons were adequate and whether the Claimant had opportunity to address the key issues.

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law in dismissing the appeals; the reasoning regarding the impact on the protected oak tree and amenity space was lawful, the alleged mistake of fact was not unfair, and the Claimant had opportunity to address all material issues.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed