O'Connor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

O'Connor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

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.

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 / Statutory Appeal (planning) / Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Application for judicial review/statutory appeal allowed; Secretary of State’s decisions quashed
Legal Topics
Town and Country Planning, Flood Risk Assessment, Enforcement Notice, Sequential Test, Exception Test, Human Rights (article 8)
Administrative Law Planning Law Town and Country Planning Flood Risk Assessment Enforcement Notice Sequential Test Exception Test Human Rights (article 8)

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
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 / Statutory Appeal (planning) / Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State lawfully assessed flood risk in dismissing the planning and enforcement appeals
  2. 2 Whether the Sequential and Exception Tests under the NPPF were properly applied
  3. 3 Whether adequate reasons were given for departing from the Inspector’s findings

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

Application for judicial review/statutory appeal 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